Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the' Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SOCIAL WELFARE (COALOWNERS' CONTRIBUTIONS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the contribution by coal owners, based on tonnage output, for social welfare purposes for coal workers is in operation; what amount it is expected will be collected annually from this source;
whether the fund will be administered nationally or locally; and if it is proposed to apply the same arrangement to other industries where the need for a social welfare organisation is equally marked?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): The fund to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is constituted by Section 20 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920. Contribution to it is not yet in operation. The amount of the first payment is to be calculated with reference to the output during the last six months of the present year, and is to be paid before 31st March, 1921. The contribution is at the rate of Id. per ton of output. The amount collected will depend therefore upon the tonnage raised, but an approximate estimate would be at the rate of £1,000,000 per annum. The last payment will be due in 1926. The duty of allocating the money to such purposes as may be approved by the Secretary for Mines will be vested in a central committee, but special provision is made for co-operation and consultation with district committees and local authorities. I am not aware of any proposal to introduce statutory provisions of the same character in other industries.

Sir F. HALL: Will the Government consider as to applying this procedure to other industries?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is a question for the Government. I am very glad that the coal mining industry should have led the way in the right direction.

Sir J. D. REES: Would it not be fair, if it is proposed to impose this tax on the coal industry, to also impose it on other industries?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not look on it as taxation, but rather as a benefit.

OAKWOOD DRIFT COLLIERY, PONTRHYDYFEN.

Major JOHN EDWARDS: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the accident which occurred at the Oakwood Drift Colliery, Pontrhydyfen, on the morning of the 18th November; whether he can give any detail of the accident; and whether he is in a position to state what were the causes of the explosion.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. A report on this accident has been received from the Inspector of Mines. It appears that there was an explosion of gas and coal dust which killed three persons and injured two others. One of the latter is the fireman, who appears to have been engaged immediately before the explosion in firing a shot near the face of the workings. He has not yet sufficiently recovered to give any information, and the causes of till- explosion cannot, therefore, be definitely stated at present, but an inquest will be held and the matter fully investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TRUSTS AND TRADE COMBINATIONS.

Major BARNES: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if there is any evidence in his possession showing that the price of commodities and, in consequence, the cost of living is increased by the action of trusts and other similar trade combinations; and, if so, whether such evidence is of such a character as to make it a matter of urgency that legislation dealing with such trade associations should be introduced at an early date.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Horne): A number of investigations covering a wide area of
trade and industry have been and are being made by the Standing Committee on Trusts, appointed under the Profiteering Acts, and reports on those investigations which have been completed have been laid before Parliament. Those reports on a comprehensive view do not show that at the present time any effect is being produced in the way of increasing the cost of living by the action of trusts. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade stated on the 21st October that it would not be possible to introduce legislation for dealing with trusts this Session, and I do not think the information disclosed by the inquiries which have been held so far makes it necessary to reconsider this decision.

Major BARNES: Does that mean that such legislation is indefinitely postponed?

Sir R. HORNE: No, I do not think my hon. Friend has a right to draw such an inference. I hope, if time be available next Session, to be able to introduce the proposals which we are prepared to lay before Parliament.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the report show that, while there is no raising of prices through trusts, the tendency is to keep them down?

Sir R. HORNE: There are many instances showing that the action of trusts has tended to give people commodities at reduced prices.

Major BARNES: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Government intend to introduce legislation, whether the evidence justifies it or not?

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend misapprehends the position. We have no indication of anything being done by any combination which, taken as a whole, has increased the cost of living. But, on the other hand, the power is there, and we propose to control it.

Sir J. BUTCHER: How many of the recommendations of the Committee on Trusts appointed two years ago have been carried out?

Sir R. HORNE: It is those very recommendations on which are based the proposals we intend to lay before Parliament.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Next Session?

Dr. MURRAY: Is it because the trusts do not use their powers?

KEY INDUSTRIES.

Mr. KILEY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of industries which, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, will require protection by restriction of imports; and what are the industries in question?

Sir R. HORNE: I presume the hon. Member's question relates to those industries which are to be considered as key industries, and I would refer him to my answer to-day to my hon. Friend the Member for Eye.

Mr. GALBRAITH: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the question of instituting an inquiry, by the Central Committee established under the Profiteering Act, into each of the industries which it is intended to schedule in the forthcoming Anti-Dumping Bill with a view to ascertaining the number of firms engaged in each such industry, the capital invested, the profits earned, the number of employés, the wages paid, and the value of the imports?

Sir R. HORNE: The inquiries considered necessary for the purposes of the Profiteering Acts are being and will be made. The suggestion that such inquiries should be initiated on the basis of a hypothetical schedule to a measure which has not yet been introduced will not, I think, commend itself.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Government has decided what is the real meaning of a key industry; whether a list has been prepared of all industries which come under that definition; whether he will at once publish the list, and by so doing put an end to the feeling of uncertainty as to the Government's policy, which uncertainty is inimical to commercial and industrial development?

Sir R. HORNE: I shall be prepared to discuss the definition of a key industry when the Government's proposals for safeguarding such industries are submitted to this House. The question as to which particular industries shall be included in the proposed legislation for safeguarding key industries is one which
Parliament will decide, and as any proposals which the Government have to make may be modified by Parliament, it is clear that the publication of a list of suggested key industries at the present moment would in no way allay the uncertainty to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Do I understand from the President of the Board of Trade that the Government have decided to protect key industries before determining what key industries are?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not think the hon. Member is correct in drawing that inference. The Government have made up their mind what key industries are to be protected, and those as to which proposals shall be laid before Parliament. My hon. Friend's question was as to the uncertainty arising from the fact that no one outside knows what the key industries are, but if the Government issued a schedule of key industries before Parliament has decided what it is going to do, that would allay no uncertainty.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the toy industry is a key industry? Is he aware that shoals of German toys are being poured into this country without bearing any marks showing that they are of alien origin?

Sir R. HORNE: The question on the Paper deals with key industries. I do not think the toy industry is a key industry?

Colonel LOWTHER: Does that mean that the toy industry is not to be safeguarded?

Sir R. HORNE: No, it does not mean that.

Colonel LOWTHER: Is not this the season of the year at which to safeguard the toy industry—

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time to discuss the question.

INCANDESCENT GAS MANTLES.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the enormous increase in the import of incandescent gas mantles during the present
year, in contrast with the almost negligible volume of import of this article last year; whether the value of these imports during the period from the 1st January to 6th November was£136,000, being an increase at the rate of 500 per cent, on last year; whether the proportion of the cost of production expended directly and indirectly upon wages exceeds 85 per cent., and, therefore, during the present year, involved a loss of over £100,000 to British workers; and what action he proposes to take to safeguard this important key industry from unfair foreign competition?

Sir R. HORNE: The figures given by my hon. Friend regarding the value of imports of gas mantles agree substantially with the Customs statistics. I am, however, unable to accept his estimate of the proportion of production costs represented by labour or his estimate of the loss in wages due to imports. In regard to the last part of the question, my hon. Friend may be aware that the Government has undertaken to introduce legislation dealing with the key industries at the beginning of next Session.

Sir J. REMNANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the proportion of wages paid?

Sir R. HORNE: If I may hazard an opinion, it would be, not 85 per cent., as stated in the question, but something like 50 per cent.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is there not likely to be great danger, if legislation is delayed, that there will be no key industries left in this country?

Sir J. REMNANT: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that one of the largest imports of incandescent gas mantles, amounting in value to £3,936, was entered in the Customs Office during the first week of the present month and that some of the imports of these gas mantles are coming through in boxes which do not clearly indicate their foreign origin; and when the existing Merchandise Marks Act will be amended in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Report of the Merchandise Marks Committee recently appointed by him.

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question.
With regard to the second part, I am afraid that I cannot at the moment give a date for the introduction of legislation to amend the Merchandise Marks Acts, but it will be as soon as possible in the next Session.

BRITISH EXPORTS TO GERMANY.

Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the total value of the exports from the United Kingdom to Germany during the first nine months of the current year?

Sir R. HORNE: The total values of the exports from the United Kingdom to Germany, registered during the nine months ended 30th September, 1920, were as follow:


Exports of produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom
£15,303,000


Re-exports of foreign and Colonial merchandise
£20,174,000

GERMAN MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, CLOCKS AND TOYS.

Mr. G. TERRELL: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the principle adopted in connection with the valuation of £316,805 for musical instruments and £383,865 for clocks imported from Germany this year; and whether he can furnish any information to show the German value of the same goods as expressed in marks?

Sir R. HORNE: As stated in the form of entry used in the case of the goods in question, the value which is required to be stated by merchants in their entries is the price in sterling which an importer would give for these articles if the articles were delivered freight and insurance paid in bond at the port of importation. The value in marks on any particular day can be obtained by a conversion of sterling into marks at the rate of exchange of that day, but as it varies from day to day, it will obviously be a fluctuating figure. In making the calculation, the hon. Member will have to make allowance for any cases in which additional charges are made in respect of export.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that tens of thousands of
pounds' worth of German toys are being dumped in this country for the Christmas market without any indication having been placed upon them as to their country of origin; and whether he will take steps to secure that all German toys are stamped with a notification showing their German origin, so that British citizens who desire that their children should receive British-made toys at Christmas and who object to their children playing with toys made in Germany may be in a position to know the origin of the toys which they purchase?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware that considerable quantities of toys are being imported from Germany, but I have no information to indicate that they are being "dumped." There is no power to require that all imported articles should bear an indication of the country of origin. The question of amending the existing law has, however, been considered and reported upon by the Merchandise Marks Committee, and a Bill is being drafted to give effect to the Committee's recommendations.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this industry is being carried on largely by disabled British soldiers, and also that a large number of people would prefer that their children should have toys manufactured by these soldiers rather than by Germans who caused their disablement?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware that a certain number of toys are being manufactured at the present time by disabled British soldiers, and I am also aware of the sentiment to which my hon. Friend refers in the second part of his question: but that equally leaves the practical point to be dealt with, and you can only deal with it by legislation.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the Bill to deal with this matter be introduced this Session?

Sir R. HORNE: I think that my hon. Friend, who has far more experience of Parliament than I have, must be perfectly well aware that it would be impossible to pass any such Bill this Session.

Sir W. DAVISON: Would it not be practically an agreed measure that these toys should be stamped with an indication of their country of origin, whether we put a duty on them or not?

Sir R. HORNE: To amend the law dealing with Merchandise Marks in this country would require legislation, and I do not suppose that my hon. Friend would propose that it should be dealt with otherwise.

ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS.

Colonel BURN: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the large number of people in the artificial flower trade who are thrown out of employment by the unchecked imports of German goods in this line of business; and what steps does he propose taking to put an end to this?

Sir R. HORNE: I have received representations as to the position in this trade. The recorded imports of artificial flowers from Germany are, however, very small at present. On the general question of imports resulting from the exchange situation, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 17th November to the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck).

Sir F. HALL: Is he right hon. Gentleman aware that Germany largely built up her Navy on the free imports that came into this country, and does he not think it advisable that the Government should take steps to protect this trade?

Sir R. HORNE: I think the German Navy was built up with more than flowers.

Sir F. HALL: Largely on the imports into this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT WOOL.

Major BARNES: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many bales of wool are now held in stock on behalf of the Government in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, including wood in transit; what number have been offered for sale since 1st January, 1920; what number have been withdrawn owing to failure to reach the reserve price; if it is proposed to place the remainder of the wool on the market without reserve; and, if not, on what date the Government intend to cease trading in wool?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James F. Hope): I have been asked to
answer this question. According to the latest Estimate made on 30th September last, the total stock of Government wool in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, including wood in transit, amounted to approximately 2,638,000 bales. The number of bales of first-hand wools offered in the various selling centres during the period mentioned was about 1,423,500, and approximately 1,211,500 were sold. It is not proposed to place the balance of stocks on the market without reserve. The Government is no longer trading in wool, but they have to realise stocks bought in pursuance of War contracts. Under these contracts purchases ceased on 30th June last, and the Government's interests in wool will therefore cease as soon as its stocks are liquidated.

Captain TERRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman state the value of these 2,000,000 bales?

Mr. HOPE: I cannot.

Major BARNES: Is it the policy of the Government so to put the wool on the market as to maintain prices?

Mr. HOPE: No, Sir.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Has not the Government action in connection with wool been of extreme benefit to the people of the country, and a great financial success so far?

Mr. HOPE: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TRADE RELATIONS.

Mr. WALTER SMITH: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the scarcity of work in the boot and shoe and clothing trades; and whether, in view of the fact that millions of people in Russia are in need of boots and shoes and clothing, and are anxious to trade with this country, he will take steps in this direction in order to lessen the unemployment now existing in the trades mentioned?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware of the situation in the trades to which the hon. Member refers. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer to the statement made by the Prime Minister
on 18th November. I would, however, beg the hon. Member not to assume that the opening of trade with Russia will mean an immediate exchange of goods with that country. It will take a considerable time before Russia will be in a, position to send us goods in any appreciable quantity.

Mr. WATERSON: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that for this particular industry some thousands of exservice men have been and are being trained and that this industry is already over-stocked?

Sir R. HORNE: A certain number of ex-service men have been trained for the industry, which is not very thriving at the moment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have not large contracts been signed provisionally between the Trade Delegation for Russia and manufacturers in the West Riding of Yorkshire? Why not get on with them?

Sir R. HORNE: Yes, but the hon. Member must remember that, before goods are sold and delivered, terms of payment have to be arranged.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it the fact that the depression in the boot industry is largely due to the fact that the Government have unloaded great stores of boots?

Sir R. HORNE: That is not my information.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the quantity of timber imported from Russia in 1913; whether he is aware that by a resumption of these imports the building of houses would be accelerated, and that such imports would have an advantageous effect upon present prices; and whether he is taking any steps to secure a resumption of these imports?

Sir R. HORNE: The quantity of timber imported into the United Kingdom from Russia, registered during 1913, amounted to about 5,400,000 loads. This figure includes timber from regions that are no longer in Russia, and with which trade is being carried on to-day. As to the resumption of trade with Russia, I can again only refer to the Prime Minister's statement of 18th November. Building is
not in any way being impeded by lack of timber. So far as Russian timber is concerned, the hon. Member must not be so optimistic as to assume that it would be possible to obtain any large quantities in the near future.

Mr. RAPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the large majority of the sawmills in the Archangel district, which is the largest timber shipping district of Russia, have been destroyed?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: By your people.

Mr. ALFRED T. DAVIS: 38.
asked the Prime Minister when it will be possible to open formal negotiations with the Soviet Government representatives for the conclusion of the agreement for trading between Russia and this country; and what has been the reason for delay?

Mr. RAPER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, considering the great importance of the proposed trade agreement with Soviet Russia from a political as well as an economic standpoint, he will submit the exact and complete terms of the proposed agreement to this House for its approval before the same is signed?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 47 and 48.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will assure the House that no agreement for reconstituting trade with Russia will be entered into with the Soviet Government which does not secure the recognition of all Russian debts and the rescinding of the Decree made by the Soviet Government in 1917 repudiating debts;
(2) whether adequate safeguards will be provided in any trade with Russia agreement to prevent the Bolsheviks replenishing warlike stores for further aggression?

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if the trading agreement with the Bolshevist Government of Russia will at least contain provisions that the factories, mines, and other properties owned by British and by British and French investors in Russia and Siberia shall be returned to them so soon as free communications exist, and the managers and officials who have been expelled are able to return safely to them?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the
proposals for re-opening trade made to the Russian Government, any alteration, and, if so, what, has been made in the Clauses dealing with British financial claims upon the Russian Government in the draft agreements of 30th June and 7th July last?

Major BARNETT: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether, under the proposed trade agreement, it will be competent for Soviet Russia to barter in exchange for British manufactured goods petroleum stolen from the British oil companies at Baku?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave on Thursday last, beyond stating that the Government will communicate the basis of the proposed agreement to the House before it is actually signed, and if there should then be a general desire for its discussion, time will be found£ or that purpose.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: Why is there all this delay, in view of the fact that this delegation arrived in this country to conclude this agreement ten months ago?

The PRIME MINISTER: I could easily answer that. The fault is by no means so one-sided as the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to imagine. I am perfectly prepared to make that clear to the House when the time comes.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the first thing in re-establishing trade with another country is to re-establish credit, and is it possible to re-establish credit on the basis of disclaimed debt?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can answer that when the time comes.

Mr. RAPER: Has the Soviet Government already broken the conditions of their agreement with Sweden?

The PRIME MINISTER: I know nothing about that.

NORTH-EASTERN SIBERIA.

Sir F. HALL: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Government have any information respecting the reported acquisition by the Vander lip syndicate from the Soviet Government of a large portion of territory in North-
Eastern Siberia for development for trading and industrial purposes; if the terms of the arrangement under which Russia has undertaken, in exchange for American goods to the value of $3,000,000,000, to pay the syndicate in gold, platinum, furs, and other goods, affect the value of the trading agreement now being negotiated with the Soviet delegates in this country; and if the concession has been officially recognised by the American and Japanese Governments?

Sir R. HORNE: I have seen statements to this effect in the Press, and am taking steps to obtain further information on the subject.

Sir F. HALL: If I repeat the question in a week's time, does the right hon. Gentleman think he can give an answer then?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not know how soon I shall be able to give an answer, because there are very many reports that are loose in their character and not reliable. I do not wish to place before the House and the country any information which I cannot vouch for in this matter.

GENERAL WRANGEL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether British subjects were serving in Baron Wrangle's army; whether any were captured by the Russian Soviet forces; why these men were permitted to join Baron Wrangle; and whether their capture is to be made a reason for not resuming trade with Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have no knowledge, private or official, of any British subjects fighting in the Crimea up to date, except that on 17th November there were notices in the Press of an interview at Constantinople with a retired Cold stream Guards officer named Treloar, which gives an account of his experiences there. We had no knowledge of his being there?

Colonel LOWTHER: Is there any earthly reason why British private interests should not be allowed to fight for a gallant ally in distress?

The PRIME MINISTER: General Wrangel was not an ally.

Colonel LOWTHER: The Russians were our allies.

The PRIME MINISTER: I stated in my answer that there was only one officer, to my knowledge, there.

BRITISH PRISONERS.

Mr. C. WHITE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether information has yet been received from the Soviet Government as to the prisoners still remaining in Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have just received a report that a further party of 59 British subjects in Russia have received their passports, and may come out any day.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: How many are left?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is very difficult to find out in existing conditions in Russia. It is suspected that there may be a great many more, but there is no definite information on the subject.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that when Odessa was evacuated a number of British subjects insisted on staying behind?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is exactly what we want to find out—whether those British subjects are there of their own free will, or want to come out. We are concerned only with those who want to come out.

POLISH ATTACKS.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 63.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of Tchitcherin that Poland is continuing to attack Soviet Russia and that it is supporting Petlura, and that Soviet Russia cannot live at peace with Poland; that the Soviet Government of Smolensk is reported to be enlisting Polish prisoners of war in the Bolshevik forces against their wishes; whether he has information upon these points; and, if not, will he take immediate steps to verify or disprove these statements and any further utterance of a similar nature which may be made from time to time, and to afford the utmost possible publicity to the actual facts?

The PRIME MINISTER: Recent wireless messages from Moscow have stated that Poland is not observing the frontier line fixed by the Riga Treaty, and is continuing to help Petlura, but the Polish Government has denied these charges. Reports have been received by His Majesty's Government that Polish prisoners of war are being enlisted in the Bolshevik forces at Smolensk. All points in dispute are now being discussed by Polish and Soviet representatives at Riga in connection with the final Peace Treaty, and any inaccurate statements which may be disseminated will no doubt be refuted without the intervention of His Majesty's Government, for which there is no occasion.

Viscount CURZON: Will His Majesty's Government take steps to be fully informed of the actual facts as to whether Poland is really continuing to attack Soviet Russia, thereby providing for the resumption of hostilities?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are doing our best to acquire all necessary information.

GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED STOCK.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 66.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House of the approximate amount of guaranteed Russian Government stock held by the people of these islands, and at what date the last dividends were paid?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The information asked for in the first part of the question is not in the possession of the Government; the last date on which dividends were paid was in March, 1918.

GENERAL BAHALOVICH.

Dr. MURRAY: 70.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the composition and objects of the voluntary army under General Bahalovich; and whether this general is receiving any assistance either in money or supplies from the Government or any other of the Allies?

The PRIME MINISTER: The voluntary army of General Bahalovich is chiefly composed of deserters from the Red Army. General Bahalovich has proclaimed his object to be the establishment of a White Russian Republic. He
is receiving no assistance of any kind from His Majesty's Government, or, so far as I am aware, from any of the Allies.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GERMAN DYES.

Major BARNES: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount of dyes which have been delivered in this country by Germany up to 1st November in terms of the reparation clauses of the Treaty of' Versailles?

Sir R. HORNE: About 550 tons last year, and about 1,050 tons to the end of October this year.

Major BARNES: Are the kinds of dyes that come in selected, and, if so, by whom?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I cannot answer that. The dyes coming in are those which are of use to the trade.

DOCUMENTS (PUBLICATION).

Mr. HOGGE: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state when he will carry out his undertaking to publish all Agreements, Protocols, etc., relating to the execution of the Treaty of Versailles?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harms worth): I much regret that I am not yet in a position to furnish my hon. Friend with the information he desires, because the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the other Powers interested have not yet Been concluded.

Mr. HOGGE: When may I put a question down?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. Member might put it down this day week.

TURKEY.

Major GLYN: 35.
asked the Prime Minister Whether the Government propose to urge the ratification of the Turkish Treaty, in view of recent events in Greece?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on Thursday last to questions on this subject.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 68.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the repudiation by Greece of her part in the Near Eastern settlement, he will give an early day for the discussion of British policy as regards the various territories which were formerly part of the Turkish Empire?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I stated on Thursday last, I think a discussion would be premature at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARABIA.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether the officer in command of the troops at Hodeidah takes his orders from the War Office or from the Commander-in-Chief in India; whether the whole cost of maintaining this garrison falls entirely on the British Exchequer; what steps are being taken by the Foreign Office or the India Office, or both, to clear up the political situation in Yemen; whether steps will be taken to carry out the recommendations of Colonel Jacob at the conclusion of his mission to the Imam Maya; whether the British Government have recently entered into a new treaty with Dressy; and when British authority will be restored throughout the Aden protectorate?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Officer Commanding at Hodeidah takes his orders through the General Officer Commanding, Aden, from the War Office. The cost of maintaining the garrison is borne on Imperial funds. No treaty has been concluded with the Idrissi of A Sir since 1915. With regard to the remainder of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that until the Treaty of Peace with Turkey is ratified the status of the Yemen, which formed part of the Ottoman Empire, remains unchanged. The obstinate attitude of the Imam of Sanaa has hitherto nullified the attempts of His Majesty's Government to open relations with him. It is hoped that with the ratification of the Treaty an early settlement may be arrived at which will finally regularise the position on the borders of the Aden Protectorate.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many people who are of opinion that the Imam of Sanaa would now welcome further
advances from the British Government with a view to clearing up the situation and re-opening trade?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that my hon. Friend's estimate of his attitude is accurate.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM).

Captain TUDOR-REES: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his recent statement that the Second Chamber held up progressive legislation, he pro poses to introduce a measure at an early date for the reform of that Chamber?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by the Leader of the House to a question by the hon. Member for Layton East (Mr. Malone) on the 2nd November last.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

PENSIONS SELECT COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Sir HENRY HARRIS: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on War Pensions contained in their recent Report?

Major ENTWISTLE: 30.
asked the Prime Minister if he intends to adopt the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions contained in their last Report?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certain of the Committee recommendations have already been adopted and put into effect. The remainder, most of which involve considerable administrative problems and are closely bound up with the general industrial situation, are at present engaging the close consideration of the Departments concerned. My hon. Friends may rest assured that every effort is being made to explore fully the suggestions made in the Committee's Report and to give effect to their recommendations to the greatest possible extent.

Mr. HOGGE: Which has been given effect to?

The PRIME MINISTER: I could not say without notice.

EALING COMMITTEE.

Sir H. NIELD: 72 and 73.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the attitude of the chief permanent officials of the Ministry of Pensions towards local committees, as shown by their action towards the Ealing Committee, and of the fact that the personnel of the Committee recently set up to inquire into the systems and methods of administration of the Ministry of Pensions consists largely of officials whose conduct is impugned, in order to secure the confidence of the public, he will consider the desirability of substituting other persons, and particularly those representing disaffected areas, for the Permanent Secretary and the two Assistant Secretaries of the Ministry, so that they may give evidence, and not sit as the judges of matters arising in respect of their own administration;
(2) whether he is aware that upwards of 10 weeks ago the Director-General of Local Administration of the Ministry of Pensions, acting under an Order of 4th September last, made under Section 5 of the War Pensions Act, entered into possession of the premises of the Ealing local pensions committee, assumed the sole control of all financial administration, and completely paralysed the work of the local committee; that they have remained in such possession and control for upwards of 10 weeks, during which time they have installed nine clerks, who purport to be wholly engaged in investigating the transactions of the committee, notwithstanding that the Ministry had had 82 visits of inspection or audit between 1st January and 24th April of the present year, in respect of which no allegation of irregularity has yet been made save as to 2id. deficit in petty cash; if he is aware that no particulars have been given to the local committee or its officers of the failure to keep proper accounts on which the Order of 4th September purported to be made, and that in consequence of this treatment and the waste of public money, especially in view of the present burdens of Imperial and local taxation, the borough of Ealing has resented this treatment, and the fact that resolutions of the committee calling for a public inquiry have been wholly ignored by the Ministry, from whom not the least semblance of justice can be obtained; and whether, in view of the injury which
is being thus caused to the Government by the waste of public time and money, as well as the treatment of the local committee, he will ensure that a full public inquiry should be held at once into the whole matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, has asked me to reply. I do not at the present time propose to reply to these questions, which are of an argumentative character, in view of the fact that I am informed that matters affecting the administration of pensions by the Ealing Committee are the subject of investigation in a public department, other than the Ministry of Pensions, whose possible action in the matter I do not desire in any way either to hamper or influence. My postponement of a reply to the hon. and learned Member's questions is not to be taken as in any sense admitting the accuracy of the statements involved in the questions.

Sir H. NIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister, alive to the fact that the obstinacy of this department is losing him very considerable popularity in the country, and will he see that the Ministry of Pensions gives reasonable answers and not wait 10 or 12 weeks and still decline to inform the local committee what is the offence charged against them?

Oral Answers to Questions — BATTLE OF JUTLAND.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether the official record of the battle of Jutland, compiled at the Admiralty by Captain Harper, will be published in company with the official reports already promised, so that the public may have an authoritative and intelligible account of the battle; whether, if Captain Harper's compilation is not to be so published, but is to be withheld, he will state whether such withholding of it is due to the recommendation of the Board of Admiralty to that effect; and, if so, what reason the board have assigned for that recommendation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): I have been asked to reply to this question. I beg to refer the hon.
and gallant Member to the answers given on the 4th and 8th November, stating what documents will be included in the Jutland Paper, and also that these documents will provide all the material required for an understanding of the strategy prior to and the actual tactics of the battle. The reasons for not publishing Captain Harper's summary of events were given in my reply of the 27th October, and the conclusion there referred to, that a record based on British official evidence only would inevitably present a one-sided version, tending to distort the true facts and create a wrong impression of the battle as a whole, was a conclusion of the Board of Admiralty.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the First Lord of the Admiralty has repeatedly referred to Captain Harper's record and promised that it should be published, and is he aware that the only practical reason for the withholding of this document has been given as this, that it may prejudice the interests of private publishers, and does he think that this paltry reason justifies the promise of the First Lord being dishonoured?

Sir J. CRAIG: No, the Prime Minister distinctly stated that the private interests of the publisher could not possibly interfere in any way with what was the decision arrived at.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the whole of this evidence being put at the disposal of the Staff College at Greenwich?

Sir J. CRAIG: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a question down on that subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN LEASES.

Colonel Sir H. NORRIS: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that his own wishes that the Crown should set an example to other landlords are being openly disregarded by the Office of Woods and Forests when the Crown leases of the Regent Street shops fall in, and the utmost rent is being exacted from the tenants who have built up their goodwill; and whether he will now state the method and time of his proposed examination into the conduct of that Office?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that in estimating the amount of rent to be paid to the Crown on the renewal of leases of shops in Regent Street nothing is added for goodwill or other circumstances that might result in a tenant paying more than the fair value of the premises The rent charged is in every case that which it is estimated could be readily obtained in the open market without reference to the type of business that might be carried on. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on the 8th November to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham.

Dr. MURRAY: Would it not be a good way to indicate to this Board the views of the Government if the right hon. Gentleman sent a copy of the speech he delivered on this subject at Lime house?

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether a supplementary Estimate will be presented to authorise payments to the Persian Government for the reorganisation of the Cossack Division and other purposes; and, if not, under what votes these payments have been sanctioned?

The PRIME MINISTER: The payments to the Persian Government are provided in the Vote for Miscellaneous War Services (Foreign Office).

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS.

Major O'NEILL: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is now proposed to abandon the special Imperial Conference to consider the readjustment of the constitutional relationship of the component parts of the Empire which was recommended by the Imperial Conference of 1917 to be held as soon as possible after the War?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; but it was felt that public opinion in the Empire had not yet had time to give adequate consideration to the problem to enable the Constitutional Conference to meet with any advantage next year. I hope it may be possible for such a conference to be held in 1922.

Major O'NEILL: Was it not the very conditions created by the War and by the common sacrifices that was thought would be the most favourable opportunity for a conference of this kind, and as time goes on may not those conditions become more and more remote?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is not merely a question of what opinion may be in this country. It is essential that you should carry the opinion of the Dominions with you. and it is their desire that the Conference should be postponed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS SHELLS.

Mr. MYERS: 40.
asked the Prime Minister which foreign Government has placed an order with a Renfrew firm for a large number of gas shells, reported to be 3,000,000, and for which campaign these shells are required; whether orders for armaments and munitions can be placed in this country by foreign Governments and executed without the sanction of the British Government; and whether it is proposed to allow this contract to be carried out in this country, in view of the decision of the Council of the League of Nations that the Council could not legitimise the use of poison gas and must seek means to prevent its manufacture.

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of the order referred to.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

BOOKING CLERK (HALE, CHESHIRE).

Mr. MYERS: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the pledge he gave to the railway workers of the United Kingdom on Sunday, 5th October, 1919, at the time of the settlement of their strike, that there would be no victimisation, has not been fulfilled in the case of the Cheshire Lines Committee, who have persistently refused to allow a booking clerk named Clark, who was employed at Hale Station, to resume his railway duties, their reason being that he took sympathetic action with the operative employees on Wednesday and Thursday, 1st and 2nd October, 1919; and
whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to have his pledge carried out by the reinstatement of this clerk?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir E. Geddes): : I have been asked to answer this question. The strike settlement with the National Union of Railway-men and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen provided that no man should be prejudiced as a result of the strike. I am informed that this man belonged to neither union and was not on strike, but after remaining on duty for some days refused to perform, while on duty, his own work as a booking clerk. He was dismissed by his employers, the Cheshire Lines Committee, and has, I am told, obtained other employment.

Mr. MYERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he was reported to have been a member of one of these unions and is anxious to secure reinstatement?

Sir E. GEDDES: My information is that he was not in either of the unions.

Mr. WATERSON: Did not the settlement affect all men on strike?

Sir E. GEDDES: This man was not on strike.

STRATFORD-ON-AVON AND MIDLAND JUNCTION RAILWAY.

Mr. HIGHAM: 76.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the remarkable improvements that have been made in the equipment and permanent way of the Stratford-on-Avon and Midland Junction. Railway; whether the expenditure on this work was paid for out of the Government subsidy; has he agreed to this expenditure; and, if not, how did the company make sufficient profit during the War practically to reconstruct its road, its bridges, and railway stations?

Sir E. GEDDES: The amounts charged to the Government account by this Company for maintenance and renewal of way and works in the past five years were:—


1915
£11,800


1916
10,014


1917
15,517


1918
20,592


1919
36,532


as compared with£4,896 expended in 1913. The expenditure for 1918 and 1919 is under
detailed investigation and substantial reductions for 1919 have already been accepted by the Company in respect of work challenged by the Ministry as not debitable to the State. The whole question of railway companies' expenditure on maintenance, under the agreements, is now being considered by the Committee presided over by Lord Colwyn.

RAILWAYS (GROUPING).

Mr. GILBERT: 77.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is intended in the proposed Bill for the grouping of railways to make provision for the creation of a police board for each group of railways on the lines of the police federation established under the Police Act, 1919; and, if so, whether he is prepared to receive a deputation of the accredited representatives of the Railway Police whom he recently interviewed with respect to conditions of service?

Sir E. GEDDES: It is not intended in the proposed Bill dealing with the future of the railways to set up police boards for each group, and the latter portion of the question therefore does not arise.

Sir F. HALL: 85.
asked the Minister of Transport whether Parliamentary authority will have to be obtained to carry out the scheme for the grouping of the main line railways and for the allocation to the State of a share of railway profits, which he stated in a recent speech was under consideration by the Government; and, if so, will he state when it is proposed to introduce a Bill for the purpose?

Sir E. GEDDES: Parliamentary authority will be required for the proposals which I have outlined to the House for dealing with the present situation of the railways. It is proposed to invite Parliament to pass legislation before August next.

FARES (ATHLETIC CLUBS).

Sir H. NORRIS: 78.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that in pre-War days it was the universal custom for all railway companies in the United Kingdom to allow members of football, cricket, and other athletic clubs travelling together for the purpose of taking part in a bona fide cricket or foot ball match or other athletic game to
travel at the reduced fare of a single fare and a quarter for the return journey; whether during the War that privilege was withdrawn and has not since been resumed; whether, in his opinion, the time has now arrived when the old privileges might safely be restored to members of such clubs, especially having regard to the fact that even then the reduced fare would entail an increase of 75 per cent, over the pre-War fare; and, if so, whether he will take the necessary steps accordingly?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am aware that in pre-War days cheap fares concessions were granted by the railway companies to football, cricket, and other athletic clubs, and that these concessions have been withdrawn. I have already requested the Rates Advisory Committee to review the whole question of travelling facilities by railway at rates lower than the ordinary. I am awaiting their Report, and meanwhile am unable to restore particular concessions. I have great sympathy with the hon. Member's point of view, but I am sure that he will realise that any concession to a particular class of travellers must be borne by the rest of the travelling public, unless it brings new business, and that is being carefully watched. I hope it may be desirable shortly to do something in the direction indicated, and I had taken the question up with that in view.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with other Departments to get the landlord's to reduce their rents at the same time?

RAILWAY RATES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Major MOLSON: 79.
asked the Minister of Transport whether legal and other expenses incurred by the railway companies attending the Railway Rates Committee meetings were paid out of public funds; and, if so, why should traders not be treated in the same way?

Sir E. GEDDES: As I informed the hon. Member for Islington South on the 1st of November, I am advised that the costs incurred by the railway companies in presenting their case through Counsel before the Rates Advisory Committee are properly chargeable under the Railway Agreements as a working expense debit-able to the Government. The reason
traders cannot be treated in the same way is because they have not got the same agreement.

MOTOR CHARS-A-BANC (BRAKES).

Viscount CURZON: 80.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the recommendation of the common jury with reference to the very serious and fatal accident to a motor char-à-banc at Oxenhope that a third or emergency brake should be fitted to all heavy public service motor vehicles; and whether he will take steps in future legislation affecting such vehicles to give effect to this suggestion and to ensure that powers are given to the police to frequently satisfy themselves that such a brake would hold the vehicle either forwards or backwards fully laden upon a steep gradient?

Sir E. GEDDES: As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Keighley on 4th November, the whole of the circumstances attending the char-à-banc accident at Oxenhope have been inquired into by an inspector of my Department, and his Report is now being considered. The recommendation of the common jury in this particular instance as to the fitting of an emergency brake to all heavy public-service vehicles will be brought to the attention of the Departmental Committee concerned. As regards the general question of legislation, I would refer the Noble Lord to the latter part of the answer given to him on 1st November.

RAILWAY AGREEMENTS COMMITTEE.

Mr. WATERSON: 81.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the rail way executive has refused to give evidence before Lord Colwyn's Committee; and, if so, can he make a statement on the subject?

Mr. MYERS: 83.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the Departmental Committee on Railway Agreements has power to summon witnesses and compel their attendance to give evidence; if not, whether any witness who has been invited to give evidence has refused; and, if so, Whether measures will be taken to enforce the attendance of any witness whose evidence is essential to the proper conduct of the inquiry?

Mr. HIGHAM: 84.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, as stated in the
press, the Railway Executive have declined to appear before Lord Colwyn's Committee, and what action he proposes to take in the matter; whether this refusal on the part of the Railway Executive will delay the Report of this Committee, and if there is any likelihood of an interim Report being given to the House covering the investigations already made; and can he inform the House when this Report is likely to be forthcoming?

Sir E. GEDDES: It would be convenient if I reply to the three questions together. The Committee have no power to compel witnesses to attend, and the selection of those they invite is entirely a matter within their discretion. I have received no report from them on the subject. I have been informed, however, on the 19th November, by Sir Herbert Walker, that with the concurrence of his colleagues, he has felt unable to give evidence for reasons given in a letter to the secretary of Lord Colwyn's Committee, on 10th November, which he asks me in fairness to himself to read to the House. It is rather long, but I think in the circumstances the House will allow me to read it. The letter is as follows:

"L. & S.W. Railway,

General Manager's Office,

Waterloo Station,

S.E. 10th November, 1920.

Secretary to Departmental

Committee on Railway Agreements,

Ministry of Transport 6,

Whitehall Gardens, S.W.1.

Departmental Committee on Railway
Agreements.

DEAR SIR,

With further reference to your letter of the 1st instant, I have now had an opportunity of consulting those general managers who were my colleagues on the Railway Executive Committee.

I was desirous of doing this as it seems clear that any member of that body could only give evidence in a representative capacity.

We have carefully considered the request that evidence should be given before your Committee by me, as Acting Chairman of the Railway Executive Committee, and a precis of such evidence submitted in advance, and we are unanimously of opinion that it would be improper for any one of us to take this action in view of what we understand to be the scope of the inquiry to be held by your Committee and of the fact that the agreements in question affect the rights of individual companies and may be the subject of litigation.

With regard to the agreements mentioned in the reference to the Committee, the general managers who formed the Railway Executive Committee were acting, not as representatives of the Government, but as negotiators for the railway companies.

We feel strongly that, having regard to future possibilities in relation to those agreements, the position in which any one of us would be placed as a witness before the Committee is not one which he should be asked to occupy.

So far as we are aware, all the facts relating to the agreements in question can be obtained from the officials of the Government Departments concerned, but if this is not the case and there is information within the knowledge of any of the members of the Railway Executive Committee which your Committee desire to have, I would suggest that you should indicate the questions to which an answer is desired, and the matter shall at once receive careful attention.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) H. A. WALKER."

EXCURSION TRAINS (CHRISTMAS).

Mr. ALFRED T. DAVIES: 82.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it will be possible to have excursion trains or cheap fares for the Christmas holidays; and if he will make representations to the railway companies with that object in view?

Sir E. GEDDES: I have had this matter under consideration, and the railway companies have been requested for their views. I am hoping that it will be possible to introduce cheap excursion trains.

Mr. DAVIES: Shall we have excursions before Christmas?

Sir E. GEDDES: I hope that something in the way of excursion trains may be possible.

Sir OWEN-PHILIPPS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider favourably the question of cheap fares for serving soldiers who have not had an opportunity of seeing their homes for four, five, or six years?

Sir E. GEDDES: Certainly, I will.

MOTOR CARS (HEAD-LIGHTS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 86.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can see his way to recommend that the practice of cars lowering head-lights when passing one another at night be adopted in this country; whether he is aware that pedestrians, cyclists, as well as vehicles,
are in great danger of being run into by the driver of any car after he has come through the glare of head-lights, dazzle or otherwise, and that the ordinary user of the road would be insured considerably greater safety if this very simple courtesy, which is almost universal throughout our Dominions and the United States, were adopted?

Sir E. GEDDES: As the hon. Member is aware, all these questions of regulation of mechanically-propelled vehicles are under investigation with a view to legislation.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Seeing that a great number of accidents take place every day, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give the suggestion a trial before the Committee report?

Sir E. GEDDES: I have no power to do it. Legislation is necessary.

Major COHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this practice is already very much followed in this country?

Sir E. GEDDES: Yes, but we cannot compel its adoption without legislation.

General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he could not put forward some recommendations, which the great body of motorists would readily adopt if it came with all the force behind the Ministry of Transport, even though the right hon. Gentleman is not able to get legislation this Session?

Sir E. GEDDES: Yes, I shall have great pleasure in considering that. I will consult my hon. Friend about it. The subject is full of difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

"WEEKLY SUMMARY."

Mr. GALBRAITH: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the publication of extracts from No. 12 of the "Weekly Summary,"issued from Dublin Castle to police barracks in Ireland, which appear to show that the document in question directly encourages reprisals, he can now see his way to having a copy of each issue of the "Weekly Summary" laid upon the Table of the House.

Mr. HOGGE: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the Weekly Summary issued from Dublin Castle and circulated among the police throughout Ireland; whether he is aware that No. 12 of this periodical contains an extract from a proclamation by General Paine during the American Civil War announcing a policy of reprisals; and whether he will see that this incitement to reprisals on the part of the police is withdrawn and the official responsible for its insertion is "reprimanded?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): As there appears to be some misapprehension in the minds of hon. Members in regard to the Weekly Summary, I am glad to have this opportunity of stating the exact position. This publication is produced by the heads of the police for the benefit of the members of that force who, if no such periodical existed, would have no means of knowing the truth regarding current events in Ireland. In my opinion and in that of the police authorities this paper has done great service in maintaining the moral of the police. I resent the suggestion that anything contained in it would justify a reprimand of its editor. If it is the general desire of the House I am willing to arrange for copies to be placed in the Library.

Mr. HOGGE: What service was served by the publication of an extract from a proclamation by General Paine during the American Civil War announcing a policy of reprisals, and what present use to the Constabulary to-day could be a proclamation of the date of the Civil War?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot go into the merits of every paragraph in the paper. When I undertook the office of Secretary for Ireland, the police, especially those living in remote parts, were almost marooned in their barracks, and this we thought was the proper way of connecting them with the central organisation in Dublin and keeping them in touch with events in Ireland.

Mr. HOGGE: Admitting that fact, what purpose is served in that magazine, which is intended to keep those marooned constabulary in touch with present events, publishing that proclamation demanding
reprisals of the date of the American Civil War?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I can only repeat I cannot go into the merits of every paragraph in this paper.

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.

Dr. McDONALD: 54.
asked the Prime Minister if he has received any acknowledgment of his offer to discuss the Government's proposals with representatives who have authority to speak for the Irish people; and, if not, is he prepared to go further and put that offer into writing to the leaders of the Sinn Fein movement and other bodies in Ireland and, if a favourable reply is received, to summon such a conference with the least possible delay?

The PRIME MINISTER: So far, the appeals made have produced no effective results.

MURDER OF OFFICERS, DUBLIN.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will give to the House the latest information regarding the casualties during the week-end in Ireland, and whether he considers the Government in Ireland has taken, or is taking, ample powers of action to deal with the situation?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have also received notice of a somewhat similar question from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Islington (Sir N. Moore), from the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft), and horn the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). As to the question of policy raised, the Prime Minister will reply.
I shall read to the House the latest telegram from Dublin with reference to the cruel and savage massacres of wounded and unarmed British officers in Dublin yesterday. May I say this series of cold blooded and carefully-planned atrocities will, I hope, bring vividly before the House and the public the cruel reality of the Irish situation? We are fighting an organised band of paid assassins, whose plans, recently discovered, include the destruction of life and. property in this country, as well as in Ireland. In the first place, a wire received at one o'clock p.m. to-day states that
Everything is apparently normal in Dublin to-day. All outward trains are not running, and motors are severely restricted. There have been no fresh disturbances.
I shall give now, just as I have received them, the details of, I think, one of the most awful tragedies in the history of our Empire:
There have been fourteen deaths, six injured, including one assassin and three assassins captured redhanded with arms. The circumstances of the deaths of British officers were as follows:—

"CASE A.—119, Lower Baggot Street. One murder.
Raid presumably as in others. Captain Baggally, Court-Martial Officer, shot dead. When police arrived every occupant of the house had left, and no witness was available to describe circumstances. This gallant officer had lost a leg in war and was a barrister by profession. He had been employed as Prosecutor on Courts-Martial.

May I say that nearly all these officers were non-combatant officers.

"CASE B.—28, Earlsfort Terrace. One murder.
Murderers' leader rang bell, asked maid for Colonel Fitzpatrick. She disclosed whereabouts of bedroom of Captain Fitzgerald. Leader then called in about 20 men, who were placed in position in hall. Leader entered Fitzgerald's room. Maid heard his shouts and the assassin's voice say,' Come on! Four shots fired into body in rapid succession. Police found Captain Fitzgerald in bed in pool of blood, forehead shattered with bullets, another through heart and one through wrist which held up to ward off shot. All fired point-blank. Officer unarmed. This gallant officer was the son of a Tipperary doctor, recently employed defence officer, Police Barrack in Clare, was then kidnapped by I.R.A., who tried to shoot him with own revolver, which miraculously missed fire. They then twisted arm until it was dislocated, dragged him to a field, propped him against wall, fired at him. He overlept wall and escaped, and had come to Dublin for surgical treatment for arm. Only few days out of hospital before assassinated.

"CASE C.—22, Lower Mount Street. One murder in house.
Two further murders resulting near by. Facts are, maid opened door, 20 men rushed in and demanded to know bedrooms of Mr. Mahon and Mr. Peel. Matron's room out pointed. They entered and five shots fired immediately at few inches range. Mr. Mahon killed. At same time others attempted enter Mr. Peel's room. Door locked. Seventeen shots fired through panels. Peel escaped uninjured. Meanwhile another servant hearing the shots shouted from upper window to party of officers of Auxiliary Division who passing had left Beggars Bush Barracks to catch early train southward for duty. These officers at once attacked house,
after despatching two of their number, temp. Cadets C. A. Morris and Frank Garniss, to their depot for reinforcements, both of whom were assassinated on the way. The officers chased assassins through house and captured one, whom their fire had wounded, and three others, all of whom were armed.

Captain STANLEY WILSON: Are they still alive?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: These men will be tried for murder.
Mr. Morris lived at Mitcham, was Lieutenant, Machine Cun Corps, had served in France, aged 22, joined Auxiliary Division 12th October. Garniss joined 13th October, had 15 years' service in Army. Lived in Hull. These first deaths in Auxiliary Division which is doing such splendid work in Ireland.
CASE D.—At Briama, 117, Morehampton Road. Murder of one officer and two civilians.
Just before nine a party of between 12 and 20 armed men knocked at the door, and it was opened by a boy of 10 years, the son of Mr. Smith, the householder. They rushed into the house and dragged Mr. Smith and Captain McLean (who were in bed with their wives) into a front spare bedroom. Mr. Caldow, the brother of Mrs. McLean, was thrust in beside them, and all three were shot in cold blood. Captain McLean and Mr. Smith were dead before an ambulance could arrive. Mr. Caldow was seriously wounded. Mr. Thomas Henry Smith, who was the landlord, was about 45 years of age, leaves a wife and three children. Captain McLean, who served with the Rifle Brigade during the War along with his brother-in-law, Mr. John Caldow, a native of Prestwich, Scotland, had come to Ireland with the view of securing employment in the Police. Captain McLean leaves a wife and child. Both Mrs. Smith and Mrs. McLean were in the house when their husbands were murdered. It is said that the assassins dragged their victims to empty room to murder them, as Captain McLean, wrhen overpowered, implored them not to murder him under his wife's eyes. On completing their dastardly work the murderers ran out of the house and disappeared.
CASE E.—92, Lower Baggot Street. murder.
Party of raiders, numbering dozen, were let in by landlady, Mrs. Slack, and asked for Captain Newbury, Court Martial Officer, who lived there with wife. Seeing crowd, landlady rushed upstairs in terror and saw nothing subsequent happening. Men knocked at Newbury's door. Mrs. Newbury opened it, and, seeing crowd of men with revolvers, slammed door in their faces and locked it. Men burst door, but Newbury escaped to inner room. Captain Newbury and wife together tried hold door against them. Almost succeeded in shutting it when men fired through door, wounding Newbury, who, though spilling blood, nevertheless got to window, flung it open and was half-way out when murderers burst into room. Mrs
Newbury flung herself in their way, but they pushed her aside and fired seven shots into Newbury's body. Police found it half in and half out covered with blanket which wife, though prostrate, had placed over it. Woman's resolution and her subsequent grief strongly affected police party. Significant notice that murderers in this case, as in two or three others, made diligent search for papers, hoping perhaps find and abstract documents or evidence on which military law officers working.
CASE F.—28, Upper Pembroke Street. Two officers murdered and four wounded.
Residence of Mrs. Gray was raided at nine this morning by about 20 men, some of whom came on bicycles. The house consists of several flats. Raiders armed and undisguised held up a maid on the stairs and Mrs. Gray, the proprietress, who was leaving her room. House appeared to be familiar to them as they broke up into parties, went to various parts of the house. 10 to 12 shots were heard, and, following these, assassins decamped. Mrs. Gray and her maid visited rooms immediately and found Major Dowling, Grenadier Guards, had been shot dead at his bedroom door. Captain Price, of the Royal Engineers, was found dead in the room next door. Captain Kenlyside, Lancashire Fusiliers, whose wife most gallantly struggled with the murderers and thereby frustrated their purpose, was wounded in the arm. Colonel Woodcock was fired at as he came downstairs. He appeared to have taken the raiders who were in the hall unawares. He called out to Colonel Montgomery, who, coming out of his room, was wounded in the body. Turning towards his room to secure a weapon. Colonel Woodcock was also wounded. Colonel Woodcock and Colonel Montgomery both belong to the Lancashire Fusiliers. A sixth officer, Mr. Murray, of the Royal Scots, was also wounded as he descended the stairs. A lady resident in the house went from room to room seeking help, and in every room found only dead, dying, or wounded men.
CASE G.—38, Upper Mount Street. Two murders.
House entered Twenty armed unmasked men let in by servant, Catharine Farrell, who unwillingly outpointed rooms occupied by Lieutenant Aimes, of Grenadier Guards, and Lieutenant Bennett, of R.A.S.C. Motor Transport. Maid rushed upstairs and told officer sleeping upper floor and another male lodger that murder was being done downstairs. Fusilade shots heard. When they came downstairs, they found two bodies in pool of blood in Aimes's bedroom. Bennett evidently dragged from bedroom in bed clothes into brother officer's room, where both shot together, their bodies lying side by side.
This is the last of these horrible atrocities:
CASE H.—Gresham Hotel, Sackville Street. Two murders.
Party 15 to 20 men entered open door hotel, held up boots and head porter with revolvers. They went to rooms occupied by
ex-Captain Patrick McCormack, Army Veterinary Corps, and Lieutenant L. E. Wilde. Party, one of whom carried huge hammer, knocked first Room 14, occupied by Wilde. He opened and asked: 'What do you want?' For answer, three shots were fired into his chest simultaneously. Party then moved to Room 24, entered room, and found McCormack sitting in bed reading paper. Without word, five shots were fired into his body and head as he sat there. Bed saturated, body and especially head horribly disfigured. Possibly hammer was used as well as shots to finish off this gallant officer.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down. Sit down!"]

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice—

Mr. DEVLIN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I have had notice of another private notice question.

Mr. DEVLIN: remained standing.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat when I rise. If he wishes to ask a question, he will have an opportunity.

Mr. DEVLIN: rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"]

MURDER CONSPIRACY.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the House of Commons would be prepared at a single sitting to give him whatever powers may be necessary to stamp out the atrocious murder campaign in Ireland under which fourteen British officers and civilians were yesterday foully done to death in Dublin, and will he take immediate steps to introduce any necessary legislation to enable persons found in possession of arms or ammunition without a permit in any disturbed area in Ireland to be shot?

The PRIME MINISTER: I appreciate the view and desire of my hon. Friend, and share with him the horror we all feel about the cold-blooded murder of unarmed British officers by assassins in Dublin yesterday. The Government are resolved to suppress the murder conspiracy in Ireland We always realised that, to stamp out such a carefully organised and highly-subsidised plot would take time, but we are convinced, in spite of recent outbreaks, that the Irish authorities are gradually succeeding in
their gallant efforts to break up the gang of assassins who have been terrorising Ireland. Should, however, experience show that the powers with which the Irish Government are equipped prove insufficient for that purpose, they will have no hesitation in asking Parliament for such further authority as may be necessary to achieve that end".

4.0 P.M.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the Prime Minister why it is, when a question is put to himself and the Chief Secretary to recite all the horrible occurrences that have taken place last Sunday in Dublin, that we have heard nothing about the appearance of the military forces at a football match. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] At which ten people were killed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] I will not sit down. I want to know from the Prime Minister why the House of Commons has not been made acquainted, in the recital of these other things that have occurred, with the onrush of the military into a football field, with fifteen thousand people, indiscriminate shooting, and ten men killed. Why was the House not told that when the other story was being told? May I ask for an answer?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I was never asked that question referred to by the hon. Member, but I am prepared to answer it now.

Mr. DEVLIN: rose to put further supplementary questions, amid loud shouts of "Sit down!"

Grave disorder having arisen, MR. SPEAKER suspended the Sitting under Standing Order No. 21.

Sitting suspended at Five minutes after Four o'clock, the public galleries being also temporarily closed.

Mr. SPEAKER: resumed the Chair, at Twenty minutes after Four o'clock.

Major MOLSON: I wish to apologise to the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin), to you Mr. Speaker, and to the House. I am afraid that I allowed my feelings to get the better of myself, and I forgot myself.

Mr. DEVLIN: I should like to accept the apology which has been given by the hon. Gentleman, and I can assure him
that in this, or in any matters affecting me in this House, I have not the slightest personal feeling, nor do I propose to have any personal feeling in regard to this question further than to forget it. I think, however, that I am entitled to say that when I rose my complaint was not against the hon. Gentleman, but against what I think is a growing practice in this House of hon. Members taking out of your hands, Mr. Speaker, the question of "order in relation to questions and supplementary questions. I may respectfully point out that you, Sir, are not only the Speaker of this House, but you are the custodian of the rights of minorities in this House. We, as a minority in this House, consistent with Parliamentary Order, demand protection from the attempts that are made to howl us down when we are asking legitimate questions. When you, Sir, declare that questions are not of an orderly character I always resume my seat. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!" and "Hear, hear!"] Yes, I do.
The question I put was, I think, a perfectly legitimate question arising out of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was this: Why was it that he did not recite all the incidents that took place in Dublin and tell the whole story and not part of the story? He said that the reason that he did not answer it was because the question was not specifically put to him. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) sent a notice to the right hon. Gentleman, I think, on Sunday, which must have reached him yesterday morning, that it was his intention to ask him to state to the House all the incidents of this character that had occurred in Ireland during the week-end. That was sufficient notice to the right hon. Gentleman, and the right hon. Gentleman not having given that part of the story which recorded the murder of ten or fifteen civilians, I was entitled as a Member representing Ireland to ask that not a section of the story, but the whole story, should be told. Therefore, I rise now to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us the story.

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: I gave notice of a question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, namely, Do the Government realise that the friends and relatives of these gallant officers and men
who were carrying out duties which had been imposed upon them to uphold law, and to protect citizens and administer justice in Ireland, are greatly concerned at the apparant lack of necessary safe guards which allows the perpetration of such horrible and ghastly crimes as the murder of fourteen officers, in some cases in the presence of their wives—

Mr. MacVEAGH: What about civilians?

Sir N. MOORE: —and whether some assurance will be given that no effort will be spared by the Government in taking the most effective means to prevent such terrible occurrences?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not sent me a copy of this question, but the subject matter of the question has already been asked and replied to.

Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: In regard to the supplementary question mentioned by the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) I have received no specific notice of it, but I am always glad to answer questions, and I shall answer that. This is the answer from Dublin—
The authorities had reason to believe that Sinn Fein gunmen came into Dublin on Sunday under the guise of attending a hurling match between Dublin and Tippcrary, but really to carry out the Sunday morning's murders. A mixed force of military, Royal Irish Constabulary, police, etc., therefore surrounded the playing fields at Crow Park on Sunday afternoon to search for arms, etc. This force was fired upon and they fired back, killing 10 and wounding others. About 3,000 men were searched. Thirty revolvers and other firearms were found on the field. I regret to say that a woman and a man were crushed to death in the crowd.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that the total casualty list?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Ten killed, a number wounded and a man and woman crushed to death in the crowd.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there was any discretion shown by his officers in attempting to search a crowd of 16,000 people?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Three thousand men were searched. As to the total crowd on the ground I have no information.

Mr. DEVLIN: Was there a single incriminatory document found on any of the 3,000 people searched? [HON. MEMBERS: "Revolvers!"]

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: I gave notice of a question by Private Notice, which was not answered. I now beg to give notice that I shall not persist in asking that question to-day, but I shall ask to be permitted to put it to-morrow. The question was in regard to the possible remedies, in order to prevent a continuation of this terrible situation in Ireland.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I gave Private Notice to the Home Secretary of a question which I addressed to him, but, as I arrived at the House only a few moments ago, I had not had the opportunity of giving notice to you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether any steps have been taken by his Department to prevent—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member ought to submit the question to me. The Standing Order provides for that.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I explained the circumstances under which I was unable to submit the question to you.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Standing Order makes no provision for that.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the fact that 30 revolvers were found scattered over this football field impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the extreme urgency of getting hold of the arms as the crux of the whole question?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Ulster!

Sir W. DAVISON: Wherever they are. If the right hon. Gentleman has not power to do it by proclaiming martial law, should not legislation be introduced immediately to enable these arms to be taken?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Begin with Carson—he began.

Sir E. CARSON: You are a liar!

Mr. MacVEAGH: I presume, Mr. Speaker, that you heard the observation made by the right hon. Member for the Duncairn Division—"You are a liar!" [HON. MEMBERS: "And the provocation given."]

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not hear it. I was speaking myself at the moment.

Mr. MacVEAGH: As the observation was heard by three-fourths of the Mem
bers of this House, and now that you are informed of the use of that observation, I ask you if it was in Order?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know in reply to what observation it was made, but whatever the statement may have been upon which the observation was made in reply, it is not a Parliamentary expression and it should not be used in this House. I do not even know who made it.

Mr. MacVEAGH: The right hon. Member for the Duncairn Division.

MURDER OF FATHER GRIFFIX.

Mr. DEVLIN: On Friday last I put a series of questions to the Chief Secretary with regard to the kidnapping and alleged assassination of a priest, the Rev. Michael Griffin, of Galway. The right hon. Gentleman told me he would state to the House any further particulars he had to offer with regard to this case, and I now want to know whether the right hon Gentleman has that statement to make to the House?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The District Inspector, Galway, phones:
The body of Father Griffin was found in a grave last night or this morning about six miles from Galway, near Barna. The body was left at the Rectory, Galway, and the clergy refused to give any information as to who brought the body there. There was a mark of a bullet in Father Griffin's head.

Mr. DEVLIN: What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to find out who has committed this frightful outrage against this clergyman? Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to what has now become an ever-growing habit upon the Treasury Bench, namely, for Ministers, to whom questions are not addressed, repeatedly giving hints to other Ministers? I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question as to who is responsible, and one of the Ministers said, "Say Sinn Feiners."

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: The Minister for War.

Mr. DEVLIN: I think it is a horrible condition of affairs in the House.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Churchill said that. It was your own men, your minions, who committed the murder. You know it.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member and his friends really take up so much time of the House, and make so much noise, that it is extremely difficult for me to hear what is going on.

Mr. DEVLIN: He does not deny it.

Mr. MacVEAGH: He cannot deny it.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The supplementary question of the hon. Member is, what steps the Irish government have taken to track down the murderers of the late Father Griffin. All possible steps have been taken, but I must protest again, as I did on Friday, against the allegation, of which there is no evidence, that this unfortunate priest was done to death by any of the forces of the Crown.

Mr. DEVLIN: Why were you told to say "Sinn Feiners"?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: May I say, further, that the police officer in charge of the whole of this area, one of the most distinguished police officers, is himself a devout Roman Catholic, and the last man to tolerate any crime against a priest?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Does that district inspector say the murder was committed by Father Griffin's own parishioners, as you yourself said the other day?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I did not say so.

Mr. MacVEAGH: You did.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUSINESS PREMISES (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Colonel NEWMAN: 43
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware of the demand of the retail trading community for adequate security of tenure of their business premises on fair terms; is he prepared to introduce the necessary legislation during the next Session of Parliament;
(2) for how many months the Committee dealing with the interests of owners and tenants in business premises has been sitting; and if their Report will be presented before Christmas?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Select Committee on Business Premises which is dealing with the matters referred to was set up on the 22nd June last, and has been sitting regularly ever since; the
Committee has called a large number of witnesses and is now about to consider its Report which, it is hoped, will be published before Christmas. Until the Report is received it cannot be decided whether legislation is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEROIC DEEDS IN THE WAR (COMMEMORATION BOOK).

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advantage it will be to the future of the Empire that a special book should be prepared with accounts of some of the noblest and most stirring deeds performed in the War by sea and land, and that this book should be used on future Armistice Days in all the public and private schools in the country, so that the lessons of patriotism and sacrifice given by the War should be brought to the knowledge of all the children in the country?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of the suggestion contained in my hon. Friend's question, and I will enquire further into the matter.

Sir A. FELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is being done in France with most satisfactory results to commemorate birthdays and great events of history?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that it ought to be done in this country, and I have had my mind turned on this for some time. It is exceedingly difficult to do it well. There is also the difficulty of selection of subject. I have felt very strongly that it ought to be a simple book to be given to children, and I hope for the general public as well, telling the achievements of the Army and also of the Navy.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman include a chapter on Ireland?

Oral Answers to Questions — TERMINATION OF THE WAR (DATE).

Colonel BURN: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a large number of important contracts and agreements depend for their fulfilment on the date denoting the end of the late European War; and when does His Majesty's
Government propose to issue an official Proclamation, or Order in Council, which will determine the date on which the War ended within the meaning of expressions such as the end of the War with Germany and her Allies, the signing of the Declaration of Peace, and the end of the present European War, etc?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on Monday last to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth.

Colonel BROWN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the great hardship that some people are suffering through having to leave money out on mortgage without any possibility of foreclosing?

Mr. HOGGE: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the delay in ratifying the Turkish treaty and the uncertainty as to its ultimate fate, he will introduce a Bill to amend the Termination of the War Act so that the war may be brought to an end at an early date?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the disadvantages that accrue from the operation of the Defence of the Realm Act, and when does he expect to take action?

The PRIME MINISTER: That does not depend upon us merely. It depends upon the Turks as well.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: Have not they signed the treaty?

The PRIME MINISTER: They have not ratified it.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT (CENTRAL COMMITTEE).

Colonel NEWMAN: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether a return will be made to the House showing how many persons have received benefit from the sum of£500,000 from the National Relief Fund obtained by the Central Committee for Women's Training and Employment in order to train women war workers for civil positions; will he say if the Central Committee does its work on a voluntary basis or draws any funds from any Government Department; and what is its present composition?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I have been asked to reply. The Central Committee on Women s Training and Employment has in course of preparation an interim report on its work, which embraces the training not only of war workers, as stated in my hon. Friend's question, but all women or girls of 16 years of age and upwards whose earning capacity or opportunities have been injuriously affected as a result of conditions arising out of the War. These figures will be published very shortly. As regards the second part of the question, the Committee has set up Local Interviewing Boards of experts which sit in convenient centers throughout the country for the purpose of interviewing candidates. The Committee does not draw funds from any Government Department. In reply to the last part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer to his question of 7th July.

Colonel NEWMAN: How has this sum of£500,000 been received? Who has got power to give National Relief Fund money away?

Sir M. BARLOW: I think that that is probably dealt with in the Report. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to wait until the Report is issued, and if it is not satisfactory he can put down a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD (BANK OF ENGLAND PURCHASE).

Mr. W. SHAW: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a large amount of gold was recently purchased by the Bank of England at 77s. 9d. per ounce, while the free market price was approximately 110s. per ounce; whether this purchase was made with the knowledge and approval or on behalf of the Government; that the gold came from Esthonia and was conveyed to that State under their agreement with the Bolshevik Government, an agreement which His Majesty's Government refused to recognize; that a portion at least of this gold was stolen from British subjects, and that when attempts were made to bring it to this country Lloyds refused to insure it on the ground that it was gold stolen by the Bolsheviks; and that the insurance was ultimately effected by Lloyds on the understanding that the gold was the property either of the Bank of England
or of His Majesty's Government; and whether he will give an assurance that neither the Government nor their agents have received or will receive or deal in goods which may reasonably be suspected of being stolen property?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The gold bought by the Bank of England at Mint price in accordance with Statute was gold recently imported from Sweden, the title to which was beyond question, the gold itself being identifiable with gold exported from the United Kingdom a year or so ago. We have agreed to buy all Esthonian gold at Is. below the world price. We are advised that the title to this gold is unimpeachable.

Mr. W. SHAW: 87.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that authenticated claims against the Soviet authorities for upwards of£60,000,000 sterling were registered with the Foreign Office more than two years ago by the Russo-Asiatic consolidated group; if that group has been consulted by His Majesty's Government when drafting the terms of the proposed trading agreement with Soviet Russia; if that group has notified His Majesty's Government that when their properties in Russia were confiscated a large quantity of gold belonging to them was stolen by the Bolsheviks; and if, subsequent to such notification, His Majesty's Government has purchased Bolshevik gold or has permitted dealings therein by British subjects.

Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply. I am aware that claims were registered with the Foreign Claims Office as mentioned by my hon. Friend. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, and to the third part in the affirmative. As regards the last part, there is no prohibition against British subjects dealing at their own risk in Bolshevik gold, but no gold has been purchased by His Majesty's Government from the Soviet authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — LITHUANIA (POLISH ADVANCE).

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information that the Polish irregulars are continuing their advance beyond Vilna; whether Lithuania has, in consequence, made a military convention with the Letts; and whether, in view of the
dangers likely to arise from these proceedings, the Government proposes to take any measures to bring this war to an end?

The PRIME MINISTER: According to our latest information, General Seligowski, who has been publicly disowned by the Polish Government, is continuing his attacks against the Lithuanians, the League of Nations Commission having not yet succeeded in arranging an armistice. I have no information as to a military convention between the Lithuanians and the Letts. As the whole matter is in the hands of the League of Nations, there is no occasion for the separate intervention of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. LAMBERT: When does the right hon. Gentleman think that the League of Nations will deal with this matter? It is rather important from the point of view of the Baltic States.

The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree, but it is in the hands of the League of Nations, and it would be a great mistake for individual States to interfere.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (BAKEHOUSES) BILL.

Mr. RAPER: 65.
asked the Prime Minister when the Second Reading of the Factories and Workshops (Bakehouses) Bill will be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the same question on Thursday, to which I cannot add anything.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 67.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet have lately discussed the question of finally winding up the Ministry of Food?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The subject is under the consideration of the Government, but it is not possible at present to name a date for the termination of this Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET MINISTERS (PRESS COMMUNICATIONS).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 69.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is with his
approval that articles or information in interviews are contributed by Cabinet Ministers to the Press, and to the Sunday Press in particular, some of which assume the shape of ex-parte statements reflecting seriously upon the probity of the railway companies; and whether such methods of creating an atmosphere prejudicial to the interests of the companies, prior to the introduction of legislation, are justifiable?

The PRIME MINISTER: I know of no such articles or interviews which could possibly he so construed, and J shall be glad if my hon. Friend will send me copies of those to which he refers.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: indicated that he mould do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMENIA.

Mr. C. WHITE: 71.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has given any assistance to Armenia for the purpose of defence against the attacks of Turkish nationalists; if so, what form did it take; and what was its amount?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Consignments including 25,000 rifles, 1,000 tons of oil fuel, and various kinds of munitions have been despatched by His Majesty's Government to Armenia. A further consignment had been sanctioned at the beginning of the present month, but the sudden collapse of Armenia has rendered its despatch undesirable.

Sir J. D. REES: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what particular claim the Armenian has upon the British taxpayer, and when demands on his behalf will cease?

The PRIME MINISTER: That would involve a very long answer and a very long discussion in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT STAFFS.

Sir F. BANBURY: 74.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any of the Committees set up to consider the staffing of the various Government Departments have reported; and, if so, whether he will have the Report or Reports published?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Four Reports have been received up to date, the last
reaching the Treasury three days ago. Three Committees have not yet reported. I will consider the question of publication.

Sir F. BANBURY: Has the Committee on the Ministry of Munitions not yet reported?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; that is the Report which reached us three days ago in its final shape.

Sir F. BANBURY: Will it be published?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said that I will consider the question of publication. I have not yet had time to read any of these Reports, and I must do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (PROHIBITION).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 88.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will call for a Report from His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington as to the effect on the consumption of whisky in the United States by the end of the first year of prohibition?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The attention of His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington will be called to the subject with a view to a report being furnished.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that millions of gallons of whisky have been taken from bond in twelve months in this Prohibition Country?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, STAFF.

Captain TUDOR-REES: 89.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture how many persons are engaged on the staff of his Department; what is the annual amount paid in salaries; what was the number so engaged; and what were the total salaries before the War?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The whole-time staff of the Ministry, including Kew Gardens but excluding industrial employés, numbers 1,781, and the annual cost for salaries, as on 1st November,
including war bonus, is£573,480. The corresponding figures on 1st August, 1914, were 659 and£132,921.

Sir F. BANBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what benefits the country has received?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: They received the benefits of the various Acts that have been passed by this House.

Colonel GRETTON: Do the figures include the cost of the officials working in the various localities?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No; those are figures of the Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND DRAINAGE.

Mr. SIMM: 92.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether full returns have been made of agricultural land which would be improved by new drainage; and, if extensive new drainage is required, has the Agricultural Board "any proposals to make in the matter, with the object of increasing the productivity of the land, and also providing work for unemployed men?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Ministry has received returns as to 770,000 acres of land which is suffering seriously from the lack of arterial drainage, but these returns deal only with the worst cases. Since August, 1918, 174,000 acres of new land have been brought under drainage authorities, and proposals are now being prepared for dealing with another 850,000 acres in the same manner. The question of drainage schemes as a means of alleviating unemployment has been carefully considered. There are, however, many difficulties to contend with, such as cost of labour, accommodation, and winter conditions. Wherever possible, drainage authorities are being urged to expedite work where unemployment is serious.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAYLEIGH PARK ESTATE, ESSEX.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: 93.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he is aware that Mr. George Sidney Lewis bought, in 1913, three freehold plots of building land on the Rayleigh Park Estate, Essex, where roads were made and named with the idea of building upon them; that, on the out-
break of war, Mr. Lewis went into the Army, but on his return, four and a-half years after, prepared to take in hand arrangements for the building of houses, found that the land had been taken by the Government and let to a seed-grower at a rental, and Mr. Lewis has been unable to obtain any satisfaction; that the plots in question and the surrounding land have been ploughed and Mr. Lewis has been informed that it cannot be stated when the plots will be restored to him, although his title is not prejudiced; whether he will explain the reason for commandeering this land without acquainting him of it and the reason for not restoring it to him now; and whether, in view of the necessity for encouraging the building of houses, he will have the land restored to the owner without delay?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I would refer the hon Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for North Hammer smith on the 1st July last, when I stated fully the circumstances of this case. I then pointed out that if Mr. Lewis were to produce evidence that he proposed to build on the land, to cultivate it or to sell it, the land would be restored to him. He has, however, failed to produce such evidence, and, meanwhile, it is considered to be in the national interest that the land should continue to be cultivated and not be allowed to revert to its former derelict state. While possession of the land is retained, Mr. Lewis is entitled to claim compensation for any loss actually sustained by him in consequence of its retention, and he has been invited to make a claim.

Mr. WILSON: Has not Mr. Lewis informed the right hon. Gentleman that he was prepared to and was anxious to commence building houses on the land at once?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: He has given no signification of his intentions.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE BILL.

Mr. CAUTLEY: 94.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he will state the estimated yearly cost of carrying out the provisions of Section 4 of the Agricultural Bill which will be incurred by the Ministry of Agriculture; and, if necessary, will he have such an estimate at once prepared?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: This matter is now engaging the attention of the Ministry, but no estimate can yet be given as to the annual cost of administering the provisions of Section 4 of the Agricultural Bill. I may add, however, that it is not anticipated that there will be any increase in the expenditure at present incurred in connection with the Ministry's powers of control under the Defence of the Realm Regulations and the Corn Production (Amendment) Act, 1918.

Mr. CAUTLEY: 95.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture if he will state how many Government and local officials it is estimated by his Department will be necessary to carry out the provisions of the Agriculture Bill relating to the making, verification, and payment of claims in respect of the guaranteed prices of cereals; and what is the estimated amount of their yearly salaries?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No final decision has yet been arrived at as to the extent to which it may be necessary to check the accuracy of claims that may be made by farmers if and when the guaranteed minimum prices under the Agriculture Bill become operative. I am, therefore, not in a position to give the information desired by my hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: Can the Leader of the House say what business it is intended to take after to-morrow for the remainder of the week?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): On the assumption that the Report and Recommittal stage of the Agriculture Bill be finished to morrow, we propose to give Wednesday, as promised, for the Irish discussion. On Thursday, we shall take the Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Bill:
Mr. Lynn; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Dixon.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Falkirk and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill,

Glasgow Trades House Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dumbarton Burgh and County Tramways. [Dumbarton Burgh and County Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords'].

DUMBARTON BURGH AND COUNTY TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [19th November] on Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

CLAUSE 7.—(Compensation for Disturbance.)

(6) In any case where a tenant holds two or more holdings, whether from the same landlord or different landlords, and receives notice to quit one or more but not all of the holdings, the compensation for disturbance in respect of the holding or holdings shall be reduced by such amount as is shown to the satisfaction of the arbitrator to represent the reduction (if any) of the loss attributable to the notice to quit by reason of the continuance in possession by the tenant of the other holding or holdings.

(7) The landlord shall, on the written application of the tenant of a holding to whom he has given a notice to quit which does not state the reasons for which it is given, furnish to the tenant within twenty-eight days after the receipt of the application a statement in writing of the reasons for the giving of the notice, and if he fails so to do the notice shall be deemed to have been given without good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management.

(8) If any question arises as to whether compensation is payable under this Section or as to the amount payable by way of compensation under this Section the question shall, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration under the Act of 1908.

(9) Compensation payable under this Section shall be in addition to any compensation to which the tenant may be entitled in respect of improvements, and shall be payable notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.

Amendment proposed [19th November]: In Sub-section (6) to leave out the words
the compensation for disturbance in respect of the holding or holdings shall be reduced by such amount as is shown to the satisfaction of the arbitrator to represent the reduction (if any) of the loss attributable to the notice to quit by reason of the continuance in possession by the tenant of the other holding or holdings,
and to insert instead thereof the words
except the one he resides on or, in the event of him not residing on any, the special one selected by him, he shall not be able to claim compensation unless it can be proved to the satisfaction of the arbitrator that the
loss of this land would materially depreciate the value of the holding he resides on or, in the event of him not residing on it, the one named by him."[Mr. Royce.]

Question again proposed, "That the words 'the compensation for disturbance' stand part of the Bill."

Sir F. BANBURY: When the House adjourned on Friday, I was pointing out that I was unable to support the Amendment, because, although I do not agree to compensation being given in various cases under this Bill, I think that, if compensation is to be given at all, it should not be given to one and denied to another, The object of the Clause is to compensate a tenant who loses his capital through being turned out of his farm. Now the hon. Member proposes that, where a man has more than one farm, though he may lose his capital on being turned out, he is not to receive the same compensation that he would receive if he had only one farm. I cannot conceive how the hon. Member, who is in favour of compensation being given to make up for loss of capital, which may or may not arise, can say that one man is to receive the benefit, whereas another man is not to receive it. The only argument advanced by the hon Member was that a multiple farmer is rather better off than the smaller farmer; that is to say, the compensation to be given under this Bill is only to be given to a particular class, namely, the poorer class of farmer. In the case of the smaller people, who are the majority of farmers, and have the largest number of votes, legislation is to be passed to give them the property of their neighbours, on the plea that justice is being done, and then, when it comes to be rather expensive, the plea is to be advanced that it is only to be given to a man who is poor, and not to a man who, by his own efforts, is a little better off. It is true the hon. Member seems to have found out at last that the effect of this Clause will be to make it difficult to obtain land. That we knew all along. It seems to have come as a surprise to the hon. Member, and, therefore, he thinks we ought to safeguard ourselves against an evil which is certain to result. That is to say, where a man has a number of acres, that man is to be debarred from receiving compensation, in order that another man shall not pay such a sum as will render it difficult for him to cultivate the land in a proper manner. While I
agree with the hon. Member that the result of the Clause will be a disaster, I cannot support him, for the reason I have given, namely, that, if one farmer has compensation, every other farmer ought to receive it.

Lieut.-Colonel MURROUGH WILSON: I am afraid I am under some misapprehension with regard to this Amendment. As I understand it, compensation is to be reduced in the case of a holder of several farms, but is not to be taken away altogether. I rather gathered from the Minister in charge of the Bill that the effect of this Amendment would be that a man would get no compensation at all.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): No, it would be reduced. As his loss would be less, in consequence of his still retaining certain holdings, the compensation would be reduced proportionately to the reduction of his loss.

Lieut.-Colonel M. WILSON: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, In that case, I must confess I am in favour of the Amendment more or less as put down, because the effect of the Amendment, I understand, will be that whilst at the present time—

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg my hon. and gallant Friend's pardon. I think he misunderstood me. What I said was not the effect of the Amendment but of the Clause in the Bill, which says that if the loss is less because a man still retains certain holdings, the compensation will be reduced pro tanto. That is the effect of the Bill, not of the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel M. WILSON: I think I have it clear now, but I am still in favour of the Amendment, because, as I say, the effect of the Amendment now is that the proving that there has been a loss is going to be put on the man himself, and not on the person he gives notice to quit. In a case like this, the multiple farmer will have to prove he has suffered considerable loss, and the onus will be upon him to show what that loss is. I hope the hon. Member will press his Amendment to a division.

Mr. ACLAND: I would also like to support the Amendment. The particular case I have in mind is where land has been taken for small holdings. I think the whole House will agree that one of the fairest ways to take land for smallholdings is to take one of a number of farms all held by the same man. It must nearly always be a little hard on somebody, but if there is a case where a holding can be taken with a minimum of hardship, it is the case of the holder of multiple farms, which is often a nuisance and a cause of bringing farming into discredit. If that be so, as the Bill stands, if notice is served in respect of one of these farms for this or any other purpose, the owner of the farm will receive the loss he has sustained by quitting that farm. I think in a case of that kind it is quite fair, as the hon. Member who has just spoken stated, that he should only receive compensation on account of the depreciation or loss of his business in connection either with the farm on which he resides, or, "in the event of him not residing on it, the one named by him." I think when there is so much want of land as there is at the present time, it is quite fair that farmers should name one farm as that of their main business, and if, then, other land is taken away from them, the amount of damage done to them may well be measured by the damage done to the main business carried on on a particular farm, either named by him or on which he resides. I do not think the Clause regarding these multiple farms goes so far as I think the general opinion of the House would desire, and I hope, therefore, further consideration will be given to the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: The Amendment under discussion does two things. It increases the compensation to the multiple farmer which the multiple farmer can claim under certain circumstances according to the provisions of the Bill, and also—a matter which I consider more important—it transfers the onus of proving the loss to the farmer. Under the Bill the landowner has to prove what other farms the multiple farmer occupies, even though they are held by another landowner. It seems to me impossible for an owner to prove entirely all about another man's business in different parts of the country. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary as a possible com-
promise that he accepts the compensation which is payable under his own Bill at present, and that we agree to transfer the burden of proof as to the other farms, etc., from the landowner, as at present, to the farmer, who is best able to know his own business and show it to the satisfaction of the arbitrator. I have a very simple Amendment down to that effect, in fact three or four Amendments, with the object of transferring the onus of proof from the owner to the farmer. They are quite simple, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will consider the matter, which I consider of very great importance. I do not see how a landowner can possibly inquire into the affairs of the farmer, who perhaps owns half a dozen farms in half a dozen different counties.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am perfectly willing to undertake that this matter shall be further considered in another place, but I would point out to my hon. Friend behind me and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Acland) that over and over again in Committee we discussed this up and down with a perfect variety of Amendments, some of which appear to-day on the Order Paper. Finally, we came to what we thought was a fair principle—and it was carried in Committee by a very largo majority—and that principle was this: that in the case of a multiple farmer, inasmuch as he is only dispossessed of one or two holdings and retains others, the compensation should be reduced proportionately to the diminution of his loss. I think that is a fair compensation; I do not see how you can get away from it. I want to put in a word about what I think is an important matter. I know a great many people who have got in mind solely the case of the large farmer who holds several big farms, the man who adds field to field.

Mr. ROYCE: And farm to farm!

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: And farm to farm. The multiple farmer is defined in the Bill as the man who has more than one holding, whether held from the same landlord or from another. But the most common case is the case of the small man who has begun on a certain acreage, and gradually built it up. I know a lot of these cases all over the country. In these cases you must be very careful that you do not commit a very grave injustice
if you hastily carry this and other Amendments. In the case of the man who has got, say, 50 acres in three or four separate holdings, it may make all the difference to him if you take away one of those holdings. His loss will not be con fined to the particular holding on which he resides, particularly if the holding on which he resides is a very small one. The loss will be spread over the whole. Therefore, the fair principle is to diminish the compensation pro tanto with a dimunition of the loss, and that is the object and intention of the Clause as it stands, as amended by the Standing Committee. There may be a better solution. I do not see any in the Amendments on the Paper. I could not accept any of them, but I am quite willing to draw special attention to this most difficult case, and I have no doubt it will be—

Mr. ACLAND: Would not any man dispossessed still get the one year's rent or the four years' rent, without any diminution?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, I think not. Not according to the Amendment.

Mr. PRETYMAN: We ask my right hon. Friend to accept the principle of this Amendment, that the onus should be put on the tenant to prove that he has made a loss on the other holdings. That is the very case put by my hon. Friend just now in the case of a man with many holdings where the taking of one small holding will involve him in very serious loss and disability in cultivating the others. That special case is absolutely met by the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It goes much further.

Mr. PRETYMAN: That is my right hon. Friend's point. The difference really is the question of onus. I think it would be very much more satisfactory to most of us if my right hon. Friend would accept the Amendment in the first instance, and undertake to amend it if necessary in another place, thereby enacting the principle of putting the onus on the tenant to prove his case. That is the whole difference, and it is a very important difference, and unless my right hon. Friend is prepared to do that I shall be bound to go into the Lobby with my hon. Friends opposite. I said earlier,
and I repeat, that all exceptions to this compensation are objectionable. My right hon. Friend spoke on that, and many of us feel that; but where the compensation is as high as it is now it does work such gross injustice in certain cases that we really are bound, not because we do not believe in there being any exceptions—for the principle is absolutely sound—but the cost of compensation is put at such a level, and it will work such a gross injustice to small holders that I am prepared, under all the circumstances, to vote for this and against my own principle.

Mr. W. T. SHAW: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment, because it seems to me the object will be to put a premium upon multiple farms. If this Amendment is accepted, instead of having the effect anticipated by the mover and seconder, and of getting more men on to the farms, it will work otherwise. For the proprietor, if he has an applicant from a multiple farm will let his farm to him, and the Amendment will have the opposite effect to that intended.

Mr. GARDINER: From an economic point of view, I have no doubt at all that the multiple farm is the best; but from the national point of view it is not. Though I do not hold a brief for multiple farming, I respectfully appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to adhere to the arrangement, which, in my opinion, is fair in the interests of the multiple farmer and the interests of the State.

Major M. WOOD: I think I am probably in favour of the principle behind the Amendment proposed; but it is, I understand, placing some restriction upon the multiplication of plural farms all over the country. I am bound to say, if the right hon. Gentleman accepts a proposal of this kind and puts the onus of proof of loss on the farmer, then I oppose it most wholeheartedly. It is going right against the principle which has been adopted in the other part of the Bill. Why is it the Bill has laid down one year's rent is going as compensation? Simply because it has been found impossible to estimate the amount of capital which is being put into a farm apart and above from what is included in the schedules and improvements named in the schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1918.
Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be no party to the attempt to shift the onus. There is another point in which I am inclined to think that I shall not follow my hon. Friend in his Amendment. It is designed against plural farming, but any attempt to cut down plural farming which does not take account of the size of farms seems to me to be going on an entirely wrong method. This Amendment, for instance, will penalize the farmer who had two farms of 100 acres each, but it would leave entirely untouched another farmer who has one thousand or two thousand acres in one farm. I say if it is desirable to penalize the farmer who has two farms of one hundred acres each, surely it is equally desirable to act similarly towards the farmer who has added field to field and farm to farm, as was said by my right hon. Friend? For these reasons, although to some extent I favour the principle of the Amendment, I am afraid I could not support it in the Lobby.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock): There seems to be a grave misunderstanding about the Bill and the Amendment. Some hon. Members think that some question of onus of proof is here involved. I am afraid I do not agree. What happens in all these cases is that where claims are made the tenant will have to put forward his claim and the arbitrator will look into it. Criticism can be offered to any claim put forward by the tenant. Say a holder holds farms A, B and C, and the items claimed in respect of the one from which he has been dispossessed do not hold good, because, as a matter of fact, his business will not be interfered with; he still has farms B and C; the loss claimed cannot be attributed to the mere fact that farm A has been taken from him. That would be the criticism offered to the arbitrator. It would certainly be offered by anybody who appeared and cross-examined the tenant. What does the Sub-section say? I will read it: The compensation
shall be reduced by such amount as is shown to the satisfaction of the arbitrator to represent the reduction (if any) of the loss attributable to the notice to quit by reason of the continuance in possession by the tenant of the other holding or holdings.
The arbitrator has to make up his mind. Say the claim was for£100. He would immediately put questions to the tenant, "How does that claim hold good inas-
much as this business of yours will not be interfered with, you having two other farms going on? "The net result would be that the item of£100 will not be allowed to the tenant because of the criticism which will be directed to it under the Bill, and unless it can be answered, and the claim shown to the satisfaction of the arbitrator, it falls to the ground. It would be the merest matter of course to ask the tenant who was making these claims to substantiate them. The criticism which is indicated under this Clause seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. You should allow the tenant who has been dispossessed to get compensation, although how much and how far that compensation ought to be reduced by the fact that it is not really suffered seeing that he still holds farms B and C seems to me a perfectly legitimate matter of which the arbitrator should take cognizance.
5.0 P.M.
Let me return to the Amendment. How that will work out I really do not know. It seems to me a most difficult Amendment either to understand or to follow. As I understand the principle of it, it is this: That a man who is the tenant of three farms, has to declare that he will treat one of the group as a central farm, either the one he resides on, or, it may be, a different farm, to which he attaches greater importance. Then he is not to have any compensation when he has been turned out of one of his farms unless it can be proved that the loss of this land will materially depreciate the value of his holding—the one named by him. Is that a workable scheme? He has suffered a loss, but, inasmuch as it has not actually affected the one farm he resides upon, he is not to get compensation at all. A man who has suffered loss would not be content to find that compensation taken away from him because the loss he has suffered cannot be connected with the farm upon which he resides, or the farm upon which he has declared his chief interest arises. He has suffered the loss, and why should he not have the compensation? The Bill requires the arbitrator to be satisfied that this loss is not only actually suffered, but cannot be made good by reason of the fact that he holds other farms.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: The right hon. Gentleman appears to me to have overlooked one point. If a multiple farmer is given notice to quit, and the other two
farms belong to someone else, he then gets compensation for all losses occasioned by reason of him leaving that one farm. From the mere fact that he holds those other two farms, it is quite possible that his losses in leaving that one farm may be greater than if it was the only farm he held. I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend would limit that loss and the compensation payable either to the farm on which he resides or the other farm named by him.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The loss cannot exceed the cost of removal and one year's rent, and it cannot go beyond that.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: There is no limit whatever to the compensation. It is one year's plus the cost of removal, plus all the losses on sale of stock and crops, and there is no limit whatever to it. I have always asked that the compensation should be fixed. That is absolutely necessary. It is better in the interest of the farmer that the limit should be fixed. In this case, a multiple farmer who gets notice to quit one of his farms could not tell what compensation would have to be paid. Having regard to the very large measure of compensation which is payable, I think it is very necessary that an Amendment in the direction of this proposal should be agreed to.

Mr. ROYCE: I do not think this Amendment is aimed at the small man like the fruit farmer in the Vale of Evesham, or any other man who has accumulated land to the extent of 50 acres. I am sure it would never be put into operation by any public body or anyone else.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It includes them.

Mr. ROYCE: If any alteration is necessary to protect such a man, I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would make provision for it. I am willing to make such an alteration as will truly limit compensation payable, but under the Bill as drawn I am afraid that they must in every instance have as a basis for computing compensation the full compensation provided under the Bill. Therefore it is dangerous to the State, and it is dangerous so far as the increase of the rural population is concerned, and it is not aimed against the little man. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the extreme
gravity in agriculture of the large dimunition of small holdings. Since 1912, something like 20,000 small holdings of from one to 50 acres have been eliminated by increasing the holding of the little man or absorption by the big farmers.
This is a very serious matter. My Division is one to which this Clause is specially applicable. We want to apply this proposal to the good land in my constituency. If this question only applied to my own division I should push the matter to a Vote. I went to a Division on this matter during the Committee stage, and therefore I am consistent in my action. It is true that I only got four hon. Members to support me, but I am afraid the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill rather blinded the reason of the other Members of the Committee. I think to-day they see this matter with a little clearer vision, especially after the remarks of the Solicitor-General, who has convinced me that under any circumstances the basis which will be presented to the arbitrator will be the full amount of compensation, and it will not be limited to one year's rent, but it will relate to the losses he may sustain. I hope the House will not forget that the State will be a great sufferer in this matter.
I do not know how much we managed to save to the coffers of the State in out-discussion of this Bill, but it is a very large sum which I think would amount to very nearly £1,000,000 sterling of money, which was to be devoted to the settlement of soldiers on the land by making the payment of compensation retrospective. On this matter we saved the Government against itself. They require the money badly enough in connection with land settlement. You have here an opportunity to give the small man support, and you will give your Councils an opportunity where a man owns many farms of taking them for this purpose without paying excessive compensation. For these reasons I feel inclined to press this matter to a Division. I am sorry to oppose my right hon. Friend whose kindness and consideration in connection with this Bill I have every reason to recognise, and I am very grateful indeed for the concessions which he has made. I am quite sure, however, that he is wrong. I hope
that before this discussion ends the right hon. Gentleman will favourably consider the change which has been proposed, and if he does I am sure my hon. Friends and myself will be satisfied. In the absence of this assurance I shall have to go to a Division.

Major STEEL: The Solicitor-General said he had great difficulty in understanding this Amendment, but, as far as I am concerned, I have less difficulty in understanding this Amendment than the wording of this Sub-section. The Solicitor-General also said that this question of compensation would go to arbitration, and that the onus of proof would not devolve upon anybody. I submit that, according to the wording of the Sub-section, the onus of proof would devolve on somebody. The Sub-section says:
The compensation for disturbance in respect of the holding or holdings shall be reduced by such amount as is shown to the satisfaction of the arbitrator.
Who is going to show that the loss is not so much to this multiple farmer because he happens to own two or three farms as it would have been if he had only owned one farm? Who is going to show that the loss is not so great? Certainly not the multiple farmer. The onus of proof will devolve upon the owner. It seems to me that it would be far more equitable if the onus of proof devolved upon the man who had the means of proving it, and I cannot see how the owner, who has given notice to quit to a man who owns five or six farms under several different owners in different counties, can possibly have the information or the knowledge with regard to the other farms, of which he knows nothing about the capital value of the stock employed on those farms. In such circumstances, I cannot see how he can possibly arrive at what the amount of this sum should be and the only person who can arrive at that decision is the farmer himself. Therefore, I think the onus of proof ought to be upon the farmer.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment, because it would give an inducement to proprietors to encourage multiple farmers owing to the reduction of the compensation. That seems to me to be one of the chief reasons against the
Amendment. So far as multiple farmers are concerned in connection with smallholders, there are some Amendments on the Paper which I hope will meet the views which have been put forward. Another objection which I have to this Amendment is that it seems to me to turn the whole Clause inside out. It changes the onus of proof. In the first instance, under the Clause dealing with compensation for disturbance, that is thrown upon the person on whom the compensation is going to fall. Under this Amendment the person claiming compensation will not be able to claim unless it can be proved to the satisfaction of the arbitrator. Who is going to prove that? It is quite clear it is the person claiming compensation, and that seems to me to be another good reason why the Amendment should not be accepted, and if the hon. Member goes to a Division I shall support him.

Mr. E. WOOD: After following this Debate I confess that I should regret it proceeding to a Division, and I do not think the Amendment in its present form should be accepted. I confess that I prefer the form of words in the Bill to the form of words which we are now asked to accept. I would like to put to my hon. Friend this point. I think, in his mind, his main motive in moving this Amendment is the giving of encouragement to small owners. I do not want to do him any injustice, but he desires to discourage big farmers. He holds—as do many people—that in the national interest the land should be in as many hands as possible. I am inclined to say after what we have passed in the earlier part of the Clause I find it very difficult to support having one range of compensation for small farmers and another for the big men. With regard to other hon. Members who have supported the Amendment, may I ask them if we are not in danger in laying too much emphasis on the onus of proof? I have never been able to feel in a

matter of this kind that it really makes an immense difference on whose shoulders technically is laid the onus of proof. In a great many cases the case will be argued both by the landlord and tenant and the man who will ultimately decide will be the arbitrator, so it does not seem to be quite as important a point as some of my hon. Friends suggest. My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment and I are sworn allies on almost every subject, and it will be with the utmost reluctance, if he presses that Amendment, that I shall be compelled to make a temporary breach in that alliance. May I suggest to him that the language in his Amendment is not well chosen and would really not carry out the object he has at heart. He might, therefore, be willing to accept the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary that he will consider this matter when it comes up in another place.

Mr. ROYCE: I would like to be clear as to the exact nature of the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have already given an undertaking that the matter shall be reconsidered, but I cannot depart from the general principle, which is, that the compensation shall be reduced proportionately to the reduction of loss. That, I think, is a fair and logical principle. I am not particularly wedded to the words in the Bill, but so long as the principle is established I am quite willing, if it is possible, to find better words to reconsider the matter in another place.

Mr. ROYCE: I cannot say that I am satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and I must therefore press the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words 'the compensation for disturbance' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 51.

Division No.367.]
AYES.
[5.20 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barrand, A. R.
Bowles, Colonel H. F.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Barrie, Charles Coupar
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Astor, Viscountess
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Bruton, Sir James


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Betterton, Henry B.
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.


Barnston, Major Harry
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)


Casey, T. W.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Cautley, Henry S.
Hinds, John
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Parker, James


Coats, Sir Stuart
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howard, Major S. G.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Courthope, Major George L.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pratt, John William


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jesson, C.
Prescott, Major W. H.


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Jodrell. Neville Paul
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Johnstone, Joseph
Purchase, H. G.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Reid, D. D.


Davidson, J.C.C. (Hemel Hempstead)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Donald, Thompson
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Duncannon, Viscount
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lloyd, George Butler
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Starkey, Captain John R.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Lonsdale, James Rolston
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Lorden, John William
Stewart, Gershom


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Loseby. Captain C. E.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Sutherland, Sir William


Ford, Patrick Johnston
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Tickler, Thomas George


Foreman, Henry
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Townley, Maximilian G.


Frece, Sir Walter de
M'Guffin, Samuel
Tryon, Major George Clement


Galbraith, Samuel
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Turton, E. R.


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Vickers, Douglas


Gardiner, James
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Magnus, Sir Philip
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Glyn, Major Ralph
Martin, Captain A. E.
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Whitla, Sir William


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Mitchell, William Lane
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Moles, Thomas
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Gregory, Holman
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Greig, Colonel James William
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Gretton, Colonel John
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Woolcock, William James U.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Murchison, C. K.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'I.W.D'by)
Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Younger, Sir George


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)



Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Hogge, James Myles
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Simm, M. T.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Cape, Thomas
Kiley, James D.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Clynes, Rt. Hon J. R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Steel, Major S. Strang


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison, Hugh
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Myers. Thomas
Tootill, Robert


Gardner, Ernest
O'Grady, Captain James
Waterson, A E.


Glanville, Harold James
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Remnant, Sir James
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normanton)
Robertson, John
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Hayward, Major Evan
Rose, Frank H.



Hirst, G. H.
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Sexton, James
Mr. Royce and Mr. Wignall.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (7), to leave out the words "the written application of," and to insert instead thereof the words,"an
application made in writing after the commencement of this Act by."

Mr. ACLAND: May I ask if there is any important point in this Amendment?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is merely that the landlord may not be the same man who gave the notice.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (7), leave out the words, "he has given";

After the word "quit" ["a notice to quit which does not state the reasons"], insert the words, "has been given."—

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (7), after the word "fails" ["and if he fails so to do'], to insert the word "unreasonably."
As I have said, the landlord at the quitting may not be the landlord who gave the notice, and therefore it may be difficult for him within the time limit prescribed to give the reasons. We propose to put in the word "unreasonably," so that he will not be penalised if, through no fault of his own, he fails to give the reason within the prescribed time.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in, Sub-section (9), after the word "shall" ["and shall be payable notwithstanding"], to insert the words, "be recoverable in the same manner as such compensation and."

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: On a point of Order. Is my Amendment to Subsection (7)—to leave out the words "and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management"—out of Order?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not out of Order, but it is not selected.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The effect of the Amendment which I have just moved will be to make the compensation recoverable in the same manner in which compensation for improvements is now recoverable under the Act of 1908, and the compensation will be recoverable from the person who is the landlord at the time of the quitting. It may be remembered by hon. Members who were on the Committee that we had some discussion there as to whether the landlord actually paying the compensation was the man who gave the notice or the man who was the landlord at the time of quitting. As the Bill was originally introduced, it contained words similar to those contained in the next
Amendment on the Paper, which stands in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry (Captain Fitzroy), who proposes to insert the following new Sub-section:
(10) The expression 'landlord' for the purposes of the recovery of compensation under this Section means the landlord by whom the notice to quit is given, notwithstanding that he ceases to be the landlord of the holding before the termination of the tenancy.
Provided that where the landlord as defined under this Sub-section has given the notice to quit at the request of a purchaser, or purchasers, of the holding he shall be entitled to recover the amount of the compensation paid to the tenant under this Section from such purchaser or purchasers.
That would put the obligation upon the landlord who gave the notice. Those words were left out in Committee, but on reconsidering the whole matter we came to the conclusion that it is necessary to define the landlord one way or the other, and we decided to fix upon the landlord who is the landlord at the time when the quitting actually takes place. We do that because that is the rule under the Act of 1908. Under that Act all compensation for disturbance or improvements has been held to be recoverable on quitting from the landlord at that date. That covers, not merely compensation for improvements, but also compensation for disturbance in the case of capricious eviction. The expression "landlord" is defined in Section 48 of the Act of 1908 as the person for the time being entitled to receive the rents and profits. We think it will be more convenient to put this Bill on ail fours with the Act of 1908, and define the landlord as the person who is actually the landlord at the time of the quitting. Of course arrangements will be made between the two landlords, namely, the man who gives the notice and the man who is the landlord at the time of the quitting. That would have had to take place in any case under the other arrangement, and we think that the arrangement which we now propose is the more convenient.

Captain FITZROY: If I understand the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, it makes the Bill operate in exactly the same way as it would if my Amendment were accepted.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No; it is exactly the opposite. My hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment defines the landlord as the man who was the landlord when
the notice was given; my Amendment defines him as the person who is the landlord at the time of the quitting. Probably in most cases it will be the same person, but if there should have been a change of ownership in the interval, my Amendment would have exactly the contrary effect to my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal.

Captain FITZROY: Do I understand that this Amendment is put in in order to make the Bill operate in the same way as the Act of 1908?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, that is so. That Act applies to capricious notice.

Captain FITZROY: I must say that I think that the Amendment standing in my name is very important. If the law remains as it is now under the Act of 1908 in regard to compensation when notice to quit is given for reasons consistent with good estate management, the great hardship created by sales is not removed at all. I am told that the Cautley Act does not carry out what it was intended to do, because notices are given the day after the sale takes place, by the new owner in the name of the previous owner. That inflicts a great hardship now on the tenant farmer on the occasion of a sale, and it is the method by which the Cautley Act is evaded. The object of my Amendment is to defeat that evasion and to make the Cautley Act a real Act which would prevent such hardship. The notice would have to be given by the purchaser, and he could not put the responsibility upon the late owner from whom he purchased the property. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment leaves the law as it is now under the 1908 Act, and that, even if the notice is given on the day of the sale, the responsibility still remains upon the previous owner.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am very sorry that I failed to make the matter clear to my hon. and gallant Friend. Under my Amendment the person who will be responsible will be the landlord at the time of the quitting. Of course, if notice were given by one landlord who subsequently sold to the second landlord, undoubtedly, in the terms of the sale, the fact that the second landlord is responsible for compensation would be taken into account, and it would be adjusted between them. You must fix it on the
one or the other, and they will adjust the matter between them. Whether you fix it on the man who gives the notice or on the man who happens to be the landlord when the quitting takes place is really immaterial. We think that the latter plan is the better. It is that which was adopted in a previous Act, and therefore we propose to adopt it here.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I think that the point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry had in mind was a perfectly sound point, namely, that of the insecurity which tenants feel to be created when a sale takes place. What happens when a sale takes place now? Under the Cautley Act any notice which has been given prior to the sale is voided by the sale; but it is possible to give a notice, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, the day after the sale. That notice, however, cannot now be given by the purchaser; it can only be given, at the request of the purchaser, by the late owner. If the compensation is made payable by the man who gave the notice, that is to say, by the late owner, it is perfectly certain that he will never give the notice, and that would be a great protection to the tenant. The purchaser himself will not be able to give notice until he has completed the purchase, and that will be three months or six months ahead. That gives an additional security to the tenant. We have all done what we could to protect tenants in the case of sales, and we agree that, in view of these abnormal sales, he should receive all the security that he can possibly have. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman deprives him of a considerable part of that security, because it enables an owner who has no further interest in his estate or in his tenants, and no regard for anything but his own pocket, at the request of the purchaser, to give notice the day after the sale, without any responsibility for the cash. I venture to suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment is preferable, because the whole object of Clause 7 is to provide for these cases of abnormal sales. Now that we have an opportunity of helping the tenant, and fixing the responsibility for the notice upon the man who gives the notice, it is proposed that it shall be taken away and placed upon someone else, possibly upon a speculator, whereas the late owner, if he is responsible, will decline to give the notice.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I have not considered this Amendment, but from what I have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary and from the subsequent speakers, I cannot help thinking that there will be a danger of putting a serious impediment in the way of sales of land if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is accepted. I am sorry that one of the Law Officers is not here to deal with what is really a legal question, but perhaps the Secretary for Scotland may be able to tell me if there is anything in the point which I am about to make. When an owner sells a property consisting of one or more farms, he has been in the habit of giving notice to his tenants so that he could give vacant possession at about the time when the purchase is completed. It is quite true that the Bill which I introduced last Session, and which has become an Act, has put an end to this notice to quit by the subsequent contract of sale, but it does provide that, by agreement with the tenants, the notices can be given. As I understand the right hon. Gentle man's Amendment, where an owner who has given to his tenant notice to quit then sells the property, and the purchase is completed, the new purchaser is to be responsible for all claims for compensation for disturbance. Those claims are variable in amount, and may include anything from one to four years' rent. It is hardly necessary to point out how difficult it would be for an audience collected before an auctioneer in a sale room to deal with such indefinite claims as that, and how the possibilities of effecting a sale must be clogged. The sale of land will be so clogged, in my opinion, that I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman's legal advisers have considered the matter from this point of view. Such interest as I have taken in land and agriculture has been pretty considerable, and I am quite certain that the more easily sales can be effected the better. I am certain this Amendment, if carried, will have the effect of clogging sales and putting an end to them, and depreciating the value of land far and wide, and for that reason I should like some legal opinion on the matter.

Sir F. BANBURY: The position in which the House is illustrates what is going to happen if the Bill becomes law. There is my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Fitzroy), who is a great authority on all agricultural matters, who
attended regularly during the Committee stage of the Bill, is Chairman of the Agricultural Committee of the House of Commons, and who has an acute brain which is capable of unravelling all the ins and outs of the Bill. He tells the House what he thinks to be the meaning of this Amendment and of his own, whereupon my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Boscawen) says "No, it is exactly the opposite." What will happen to an unfortunate man like myself, say, or an ordinary landowner without the advantages my hon. and gallant Friend has had of having considered this Bill for so many weeks? He will not understand what the meaning of the Bill is. Then comes my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Royds) who makes a most startling statement. He pictures a sale. He says a landowner is going to sell his land. All he thinks about is the price, as if it was a regretful thing that all he should think about is the price the owner of the property is going to get. Why should he not think about it? Naturally he ought to think about it. Then comes my hon. Friend (Mr. Cautley) who puts a very sensible point. He points out that the result will be to render land unsaleable, and to depreciate the capital of the country which is invested in land. I should not have risen if I had seen the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Munro) get up, but as he did not seem inclined to get up, I thought I might rise and point out the very great difficulty in coming to a decision upon something on which two authorities like my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Fitzroy) and my right hon. Friend differ.

Lieut.-Colonel COURTHOPE: I hope we shall have some explanation of this. At the same time, so far as I understand, or think I understand it, I do not agree with my hon. Friends behind me. Perhaps if we all put different constructions on it, it is all the more reason why it should be authoritatively explained. As I understand it, it is really a question on whom the liability for the actual payment of the compensation provided under the Bill shall fall. If vacant possession of a farm which is going to be sold is required, it is required for the purposes not of the vendor but of the purchaser, and I cannot see from that point view why the liability should not rest upon the new landlord, for whose benefit vacant possession is being obtained and notice given. Another
point. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cautley) says the tenants would suffer materially if the wish of the right hon. Gentleman were carried out.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I did not say the tenants.

Lieut.-Colonel COURTHOPE: One hon. Member said that if my right hon. Friend's Amendment was carried, the tenant might suffer. I think the tenant who is turned out of his holding is much more likely to be left in the lurch if he has to look to the former landlord, who may have gone beyond his ken altogether, for the payment of compensation, than if he has to look to the owner of the property at the time he actually vacates his farm. I hope therefore my hon. Friends behind me may be satisfied with the legal explanation which I am sure we are going to get and withdraw their objections to the Amendment.

Mr. ACLAND: I also want to appeal to the Secretary for Scotland to make this clear to us. I will try to make my own contribution while he is making it perfectly clear to himself. If we deal with this from the point of view of trying to check the disturbance to sitting tenants of sales, you will really argue, it has been argued in the last 10 minutes, either in favour of the Government plan or of the suggested alternative plan of the hon. and Gallant Gentleman (Captain Fitzroy). You can argue in favour of the Government plan in this way. The compensation will be placed undoubtedly on the purchaser, and no purchaser will buy land with such a large, indefinite and unascertained claim resting upon him. He will not be able to ascertain really whether it is reasonable or unreasonable in advance. He will simply know that he wants to get the land, and of course he will want to be certain, when he bids in the auction room, of the ultimate sum he is going to pay. Therefore you may say to put the compensation on him is the way to give the cultivator the greatest security. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Fitzroy), who has also studied this in the interests of the cultivator, says that if his alternative Amendment is accepted, that will be the greatest security for the tenant who is supposed to have cultivated well because the owner will be extremely disinclined
to sell when he knows that even though he may get a fair price there is going to be this heavy liability for compensation still hanging upon him.
Between those two arguments it is really very difficult to decide. I feel that it is rather a farce, as the late owner cannot really give notice because of the Act, to try to bring the compensation within his sphere of interest. It seems to me that even if the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment were carried, and he were still technically responsible, he will really refrain from having the notice given the day after the sale unless the purchaser agrees at the time of the sale to indemnify him for the expenses that he may be put to in obtaining for the new purchaser vacant possession. After all, the man who wants the vacant possession is the new purchaser. The late owner sells because he has got to, and he says, "I do not mind what the land is purchased for; I want to get the best price I can for it."Presumably, in this case the man who really wants to get himself in and the other man out is the new purchaser. He wants to get the other man out so that he can enter himself. I am inclined to think, therefore, that the Government proposal is the best, namely, to make the compensation conform as nearly as possible to the actualities of the case. The man who wants to get in is the new purchaser, and the man who wants to get the old tenant out is the new purchaser, and therefore it is he who should pay this form of compensation as well as the other compensation under the 1908 Act. But I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has done good service in bringing the matter forward, because it is undoubtedly difficult, but as I have studied it at present it seems to me that the new owner, the man who really himself wants to get in, is the man who had better pay the compensation, both under this Act and for unexhausted improvements.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am afraid I labour under a double disadvantage in regard to the questions which have been put to me. First of all that I have not heard the whole of the Debate upon them, and secondly, I do not profess to be an English lawyer. The Solicitor-General, however, will correct me if I say anything not in accordance with English law. The
questions which have been raised are two. One is a question of law, and the other a question of policy. The answer to the question of law is, in my judgment, exceedingly simple. In Committee the point was raised as to whose shoulders the burden of compensation for disturbance should fall on. It was doubted whether it was made perfectly plain in the Bill as it then stood whether, in the event of a purchase in the interval, the compensation should be payable by the seller or the purchaser, and the Committee desired that that should be made clear. My right hon. Friend's Amendment makes it absolutely and entirely clear, for the purpose and effect of the Amendment is that at the expiration of the tenancy the landlord who has purchased will be responsible for the compensation for disturbance, and not the landlord who has sold. It brings the Bill exactly into line with the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, where a similar phrase regarding the landlord has been construed as meaning the landlord at the date when the tenancy expired. I have yet to learn that there has been any difficulty in the operation of that provision, and it seems reasonable and consistent that a similar one should be inserted in this Bill. I am not really concerned to discuss the question of policy which my right hon. Friend has already discussed, but, so far as the question of law is concerned, there can be no doubt—and I am happy to give that answer in the presence of the Solicitor-General—that the effect as well as the purpose of the Amendment is to make the purchaser responsible for compensation at the expiration of the tenancy, if there is a change of ownership in the interval.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I must support my right hon. Friend in this Amendment because I think it is best both for the tenant and the landlord that whoever owns the land at the time the quitting takes place should be responsible. It seems to me a natural proposition. Although I sympathise with my hon. and gallant Friend's object—I think I understand what the object of it is—it would be a pity to upset the principle that the owner at the time of quitting should be responsible for the compensation in order to obtain the secondary object of the Amendment, which I believe to be to prevent the seller from giving notice in
order to get the tenant out earlier, and the Amendment on the paper, throwing the onus on to him of giving the notice, would prevent him from doing so. That seems to me to be rather a roundabout way of arriving at it, and it would be very much better to alter the Cautley Act. As I understand the grievance, it is that when a farm is going to be sold, every effort is made that the contract for sale should be signed before the first notice day, and then, although the new purchaser has not actually completed his purchase and is therefore not able to give the notice, on his direction the seller of the land gives the notice. That does not prevent the primary object of the Cautley Act from being fulfilled. The primary object of that Act was that every tenant should get 12 months' actual notice. In this case you get 12 months' actual notice. Under the old provision, what was called notice for sale, until the sale actually took place, two or three months before the expiry of the notice, the tenant did not know whether he had to go out or not. That is done away with, and in any case the tenant now must get 12 months' notice under the Cautley Act, and no amount of chicanery can escape that. To upset the whole applecart for the sake of picking up one apple which has dropped out would be absurd. It would be far better to amend the Cautley Act and to provide that instead of notice to quit being avoided merely by contract of sale, it might be avoided if either a contract for sale or the completion of purchase takes place. That is a direction in which it might possibly be done. I see the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench shaking their heads, so I will not press that as a' solution, although it appears to me, as a layman, to be a solution. It would be a better way than this roundabuot method. However, I hope the House will support the proposal of the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I beg to move, after Sub-section (9), to insert a new Sub-section—
(10) Where land in the occupation of any tenant is acquired or made available for small holdings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919, or under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, no compensation shall be payable under this Section if the tenant after the determina-
tion of his tenancy of such land continues in the occupation of other land the yearly rental or value of which exceeds five hundred pounds.
This raises a question which has been discussed to some extent. First of all, there is the question of plural farmers. It seems to me desirable that there should be a restriction of plural farmings so as to prevent land getting into the hands of a few men, whether those men are owners or tenants. If you are going to allow the compensation to be reduced in the event of land being in the hands of multiple farmers, you are going to provide opportunities for contracting out of the Act, because landlords will have an inducement to let their land to multiple farmers, knowing that if these men are turned out they will be able to escape giving compensation. That is likely to happen if you have land getting into the hands of the multiple farmer, and you are going to allow, as you are allowing by this Bill, compensation to be reduced in those circumstances.
There is a further question which is of great importance. I desire, if possible, to encourage the establishment of small holdings all over the country, because that is in the national interests. The Government is committed to that policy, and they assure us that they are doing their best to set up small holdings for the benefit of ex-service men and others. Land settlement is being held up on account of finance In Scotland we have had recently something in the nature of suspension of land settlement, not entirely suspension, but something like it, and I understand the reason is that the Government is finding the expense of setting up a small holding greater than they expected, and that something must be done to put the whole scheme in a better financial position. This Bill as at present drafted is going to increase the expense of setting up small holdings, because if you take land from the farmer and turn it into small holdings, in addition to the compensation which you are to give him before, you will have to give him the compensation which is going to be awarded under this Bill. The Amendment I have put down will go a long way to meet this point. It provides that where land in the occupation of any tenant is required for small holdings, no compensation shall be payable if the tenant after the determination of his tenancy of such land
continues in the occupation of other land the yearly rental or value of which exceeds £500. If a farmer had a number of farms, and one farm was taken for small holdings, he would get no compensation under this Section if he was still left with a farm of the rental or value of £500 a year. I am not committed to the figure of £500. I am prepared to agree that it should be more or less. I have put down that figure as a basis of discussion. A farm represented by that value would be quite large enough to engage the whole attention of any farmer. An Amendment has been put down to leave out the last words in my Amendment—
if the tenant after the determination of the tenancy of such land continues in the occupation of other land the yearly rental or value of which exceeds five hundred pounds.
I found it absolutely necessary to put in some limit. If there is not a limit you are going to penalise the man who perhaps only farms 100 acres, but happens to have those 100 acres under two leases. If he has two small farms of 50 acres each you are going to penalise him, but if he has one farm of 1,000 acres you are going to let him off scot free. That would be manifestly unfair, and that is why I, have put in the words at the end of the Amendment. I hope the Government will realise that this Amendment is an attempt to help them to get over the serious difficulty which they have already experienced, and which they will experience perhaps more keenly in the future. I hope they will be able to accept the spirit of the Amendment if not the actual words.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment, and I commend it to the Government for acceptance, more especially considering its bearing upon allotment holders. Near the big towns we have land taken by the local authorities for allotments, and that land is let to the farmer at from 30s. to £2 an acre. When it reaches the allotment holder it is sometimes rented at £6 to £8 an acre. This is an attempt by my hon. and gallant Friend to prevent these excessive charges for compensation and other charges falling upon the land and being passed on to allotment holders. It is very desirable that in taking land it should be taken from big farms and not from little farms. This Amendment is a step in the right direction, and I hope the Government may be induced to accept it.

Mr. MUNRO: This is an Amendment which I fear the Government cannot possibly accept. My hon. and gallant Friend in moving it stated that it was intended to help the Government in regard to this Clause. That would have escaped my notice if he had not said so. I do not think the helpfulness of the Amendment is apparent. However that may be, the House will note the effect of it. The Government is to escape liability altogether for payment of compensation where land is taken for small holdings or allotments.

Major WOOD: Not altogether.

Mr. MUNRO: Except to the extent stated in the Amendment. That is inconsistent with the policy which the Government have pursued, that where land is required for land settlement the dispossessed tenant shall be in no worse position than if he was dispossessed by the landlord for any other purpose. One must regard this from the point of view of the tenant who is dispossessed. I cannot see that it is any consolation to him to be told that he shall receive no compensation or small compensation because the purpose for which the land is wanted is a highly meritorious one. The loss is the same to him whatever the purpose for which the land is taken. Accordingly, it seems to me an entirely irrelevant consideration to say that because the purpose is highly meritorious the tenant shall receive no compensation or limited compensation, and that when the purpose is not so meritorious the dispossessed tenant shall receive full compensation. The Amendment really comes to this, that if a man is pretty well off and if the purpose for which the land is taken is meritorious he shall receive no compensation at all under this Section. That is a very strong order. I do not see why it should not be extended indefinitely. Why should it not be extended to land taken by the Government for any other purpose than small holdings? Why not extend it to land taken by local authorities for public purposes? This Bill is for the purpose of giving security to the farmer. You could not more seriously interfere with that security than by adopting an Amendment of this kind. I hold no brief for multiple farmers, but this really has nothing to do with multiple farming. It is a question of justice as between man and man. I
cannot conceive of any scheme which would tend to make the Ministry of Agriculture in England and the Board of Agriculture in Scotland more unpopular than that it should be laid down by Parliament that they may have the right, without compensation, to take land which they propose to appropriate for the purpose of small holdings. My hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment is limited to the case where the land retained is of a yearly rental or value of £500. I do not see where the justice of that proposal comes in. The effect of it is that if a man is pretty well off, you can harry him as much as you please, but if he is a little less well off, he is to escape from that process. There is no justification for the Amendment, and I hope the hon. Member will not pursue it.

Mr. ACLAND: I am sorry that the Government have felt it necessary to offer to the Amendment such an unqualified negative. I had hoped that there had been some way of dealing with the point. One must keep in mind that the interests of private individuals are subordinate to the purposes of the nation. Unfortunately, the purposes of the nation are not always clearly consistent with one another. I think this is a case of conflict of public interest. The main national purpose of the Bill as stated by the Prime Minister is to increase the cultivation and the produce of the land, and that is to be secured in the main by giving increased security of tenure. But in a very large number of cases and in many districts increased cultivation of the land can be best produced by increasing the number of allotments and small holdings, and, as a general rule, if you take away a piece of land from a man who has still left land for which he is paying £500 a year, and give that land to a small-holder or an allotment-holder, probably in two or three years you will find that more food is being produced because of the change. There are probably from 50,000 to 100,000 competent ex-soldiers who desire to be small-holders or allotment-holders in England and Scotland. The expense of settling those men on the land, if not killing, is wounding severely any possibility which the nation can at present provide of settling anything like all the approved ex-service applicants on the land. This Bill will increase that cost and that difficulty. Though it is true, as
the Secretary for Scotland says, that it is extremely difficult to differentiate, yet what matters to the tenant is, not why he is going, but the fact that he is going, and he wants to be certain that he will get the compensation in every case in which he is bound to go, whatever the purpose.
We have got to steer between these two difficulties. I believe that the only way is to ignore the question of private interest, and look at the question of public interest. We are doing that mainly in this Bill. We have determined that, however legitimate it may be to resume a home farm after it has been left for a few years, there is to be compensation. As the Clause now stands, the owner cultivator may have died and left a widow who wants her son to come in, and if she lets the farm for a few years to a farmer she will not be able to resume it for her son's cultivation without paying compensation. Those are very hard cases, but there is no certainty, or even any great probability, in those cases that the land will be better cultivated by the new tenant than the old. We agree in those cases that compensation has got to be paid. Similarly, in cases of sale, there, again, there is no great likelihood that the new cultivator will cultivate better than the old, and compensation has got to be given. But there is a different case where a man has got left, in spite of what has been taken away, a large holding, for which he pays at least £500 a year rent, and a certain amount can be taken with the presumption that it will be better cultivated than it was by the old owner.
Take my own case. It is absurd when I am asked by my county council to do something which they are, perhaps, too busy to do themselves, to get a few fields for them here and there for ex-service men in the village who want to cultivate, and when I say "Very well. This is in the national interest. I will try to get those fields to give them to these ex-service men," that I should have to pay a year's rent for those fields to the men who are asked to give them up. I am not doing the thing in my own interest at all. It is doubtful whether it is in the interest of the land, because these men are not smallholders. They just want a few grass fields for poultry or a couple of pigs, etc. But it is in the national interest that these extra hold-
ings should be granted, and it seems to me that where there is a direct conflict of national interest it is not clear that the cases are all on the side of compensation and that the matter deserves more consideration than was given by the Secretary for Scotland.

Mr. MUNRO: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply the same principle which he is now defending in the national interest to land acquired for housing?

Mr. ACLAND: Where the owner or tenant of the agricultural land which is acquired for housing has still plenty left, just as in the case of the tenant who is paying more than £500 rent, I would, but where a man has only one allotment and it is proposed to take all his land from him, I would not. Where a man had lots of land left for his own cultivation and he was asked to give up a small corner for housing, he should not receive the same scale of compensation. I do not argue that these things are easy to define. They may be impossible to define satisfactorily, but I think it is a good case for not turning down the whole proposal.

Dr. MURRAY: Hon. Members have spoken with two voices on this question of compensation. I understood from the early part of our Debates that this Bill was designed to give security for capita to the tenant, and for that reason compensation was to be paid. If so, the Government were justified in taking up high moral grounds. But the Government refused at the end of the week to allow this capital to go to the widow of the man who had died on the farm. Therefore that high moral ground has been left. Therefore we can quite legitimately discuss this question on the ground of expediency. I will go further than my hon. Friend, because so far as the highlands are concerned, and the limitation of a rent of £500, it is notorious that small holdings have been held up for years on account of the excess of compensation that has been paid to landlords as well as to tenants in Scotland. It was the amount of compensation that killed the last Small Holdings Act in Scotland. That was modified in the Land Settlement Act. I understand that the farmer in any case would be
entitled to just compensation under other Acts, and I have always understood this section to be rather against capricious eviction than for the purpose of securing additional compensation to farmers.
We are all agreed that the multiplication of small holdings all over the country should be a great object of public policy. It is one of the things upon which the stability of this country depends with all the disturbances that are going on in the world to-day. The more people we have working the land for themselves the less danger will there be of any big unheaval in this country. Look at the disturbances in big cities to-day and look at the peaceful scenes in the North of Scotland except for an occasional raided farm. If you had more of this sort of thing up and down the land you would have a much quieter country and a greater sense of security. From that point of view I support my hon. Friend's Amendment so far as it goes, but I am more inclined to support the Amendment coming on that no compensation at all should be paid in these cases, because in these cases a farmer should not be entitled to what is really regarded as the equitable compensation due to him under previous Acts of Parliament. The question of finance is at the root of small holdings. If you burden these schemes with excessive compensation of this sort you are driving a dagger through the heart of the scheme.

Sir J. HOPE: The Amendment which has been moved brings into clear relief the dilemma of the application of the root principle of Part II. This security to the present occupier of the holding must make it more difficult to settle more men on the land, whether small holders, allotment holders or small farmers, and to make it more difficult for small holders and small farmers to expand their business. Further, if you give fixity of tenure for which I believe there are some advocates, as distinguished from security of tenure, you make it absolutely impossible to bring new men on the land as small holders and impossible for the small farmer to become a large farmer. For years past all parties have advocated the creation of small holdings, and an increase in the number of small holdings was one of the main planks in the pre-War platforms of both political parties. Since the
War there is an even greater demand for land settlement owing to the claims of those who fought for the country. From all quarters, too, there is an insistent demand for economy. We are told that if the Government spend more money we are faced with national disaster. Land settlement in any case must be very expensive, owing to the huge increase in the cost of building.
I can speak more or less for Scotland. The speech of the Secretary for Scotland, though absolutely fair, must have been a very painful speech for him to make, because it drives a nail into the coffin of the hopes of many a would-be small holder. £2,500,000 has been voted for small holdings in Scotland. That has been spent already, and there is not a great number of small holders on the land yet. What does this Bill do? When a farm is taken for small holdings it is necessary to compensate the occupier to the extent of one year's rent [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I take it that that is 30, and that it is one year's gross rent, and not four years' gross rent which would have to be paid. That means at least two or three years' net rent, and it adds 15 or 20 per cent, to the value of the land, which amount will have to be paid by the taxpayer or the ratepayer. I want to be told what this Bill is going to cost. It is for the Government to say what extra expense is going to be caused by the creation of small holdings throughout the country. The Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member (Major M. Wood) appears to me to be entirely eye-wash. Hon. Members opposite desire to have the best of both worlds, for electioneering purposes. I do not see how they can argue that compensation should be payable in the case of a farmer whose rent is £499 a year, but that it is unfair to give him any compensation if his rent is £501 a year. That is the effect of the Amendment. I do not believe it would expedite the provision of small holdings, for there is not a very large number of farmers who pay a rent over £500.
The Small Holdings Acts recommend that land should preferably be taken for small holdings when it becomes vacant, so that compensation is not paid, but there is not sufficient land for small holdings becoming vacant, and if you waited until it became vacant you would
put off land settlement to the Greek Kalends. I do not propose to press my Amendment, but I would like some clear statement from the Government on the lines I have indicated. How many extra millions of money will this Agriculture Bill impose on the nation? I do not say we are not prepared to pay the Bill, but let us know where we are. This extra expense ought to have been embodied in the Financial Resolution. My Amendment would put the farmer who pays a rent of£499 in exactly the same position as the man who pays£501. I am surprised that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) is not here, for he has always been an advocate of small holdings.I would have been interested to hear his views.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a speech, not for the purpose, as he has admitted, of introducing a reasoned Amendment, but with the express object of ventilating what, in his opinion, is the injury done to the country by this Bill. In my opinion this is a very fair and reasonable Amendment. I am at a loss to understand the tigerish pounce of the Secretary for Scotland upon my hon. and gallant Friend (Major M. Wood). I do not know what happened in the House on Friday, but it seems to me that there must have been some difference of opinion between my hon. and gallant Friend and the Secretary for Scotland, and that the Secretary for Scotland is getting a little of his own back. Was it not a little unfair for the Secretary for Scotland to suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend merely wished to harry rich people and to leave alone the less well-to-do?

Mr. MUNRO: I did not say that that was his intention. I said that that was the effect of his words.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I do not think it would be the effect, but, even if it were the effect, it might be in a good eause. Legislation is often unjust. It is a common truism that in this House we cannot legislate for hard cases. There will always be hard cases in all legislation. I certainly would not accept the Amendment to the Amendment. It would stereotype the plural farmer. It would lead on all estates to a multiplica-
tion of the plural, with a view to contracting out of the Act. We all recognise the difficulties there are in dealing with the case of the large farmer if we are to give him security of tenure as well as the small farmer. It would have been better had the proposer of the Amendment to the Amendment shown some way out of the dilemma. All of us desire to give security of tenure to the larger farmer and at the same time to increase the number of small holdings. I know nothing about England, but in Scotland the majority of the large farmers on the East Coast, or, at least, a large number of them, have started from small holdings.

Mr. PRETYMAN: And in England.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I regret very much the attitude of the Secretary for Scotland. The matter does not necessarily end there. We have had instances before of one Minister taking up a particular attitude at the beginning of a Debate and later on, when the House has expressed its opinion in opposition to the view of the first Minister, the next Minister has proceeded to say that he will consider the matter, and he has on occasions accepted our Amendments. I hope that may be so to-day. If the Government reject this Amendment, let us hear no more of the statement that compensation is standing in the way of the creation of small holdings. I ask for an assurance from the Government, so far as Scotland is concerned, that the Board of Agriculture will never again put up that plea, and that compensation shall be paid by the State, and not be a permanent charge upon the small holding.

Mr. TOWNLEY: I do not myself see why we should put into this Bill a provision that compensation should be payable to farmers because they have cultivated the land well and then proceed to whittle down their compensation. The mover and seconder may find it easy to make a present to smallholders of other people's money. I may be told that I am opposed to small holdings, but I have no fear of that, because in my own part of the country thirty years ago, long before it was a matter of politics, I laid out a very large number of small holdings. In those cases I found that the tenants willingly paid the compensation due to the outgoing tenant for the value of the manures and other things. You
are now giving the tenants additional compensation and you are doing it in order that you may increase the food production of this country, so that you may have additional fertility of the soil and more security in tenure, I fail to see why, when the duty falls upon the State of placing on the land men who have served their country or others who want land for small holdings, the burden of the Act should fall upon the large cultivator of land instead of falling on the community generally. If this compensation is to be paid, as it should be paid, surely it should be paid by the State. I cannot believe this is going to be such an extravagant matter. This is arable land, and the additional compensation may be, therefore, somewhere between £5 or £6 an acre. That may seem to some hon. Members to be a largish amount, but it is nothing to the additional cost of building and equipment necessary. I come from a constituency where there is a very large amount of land, not altogether market gardening land, which is being highly cultivated. A few years ago that land was producing a very moderate corn crop, but by the skill and high cultivation of the occupiers and by the heavy manuring of the land it has been turned into most fertile land and produces some of the heaviest vegetable and other crops. That has been done by the skill and perseverance of the occupiers. Do you seriously think that it would be fair to go to those men and dispossess them of their land, whether their holding is worth £10 or £1,000, without compensation? They have put their capital into the land and their brains, and would it be right to dispossess them without the compensation to which they are clearly entitled, and to put the burden of paying it on to their shoulders instead of taking it on to yourselves and taking it out of your own pockets instead of out of the pockets of the men who have done their best for the community during the War?

Mr. ROYCE: I desire to support the Amendment since the Mover is not bound to the sum of £500. I am very much impressed with the purity of intention expressed by the Secretary for Scotland and, indeed, by the Front Bench generally, and it is refreshing to me to hear that the rights of no person should be invaded. If it were my intention to support the interests of the landlord I
should say, You are invading his rights in connection with this Bill, but that is not my trouble now. I do wish, when you are doing this kind of thing, you would not so frequently express the unctuous rectitude which sits so well on the gentlemen who occupy the Front Bench. This portion of the Act is intended to be permanent so that the temporary arrangement made for the acquisition of land for ex-service men will also be applicable, and in that instance the State proposes to bear the expenses of the payment of any compensation. In, say, two years from now when the ordinary smallholder, and there are tens of thousands of applications throughout the country, comes to be considered he will be saddled with the cost of compensation. I have been charged with a desire to penalise the large farmer. I have no such desire. I think the large farmer has done well for the country, and he is a progressive man or otherwise would not in the majority of instances be a large farmer. I would place no limit upon his capacity or endeavours. But if land is required for the State surely it is better to take a little bit from the big man than to take any from the little man. You must take it from somebody. In acquiring land compulsorily there is first of all the value of the land and generally in arbitration that is sufficiently high. In the second place the tenant receives compensation for everything in the nature of manurial values and all that kind of thing. Consideration is also given to the fact that the land is being taken compulsorily and the prospective profits are also considered. That may mean a very considerable sum. In addition to all those things, which I consider fair compensation, you propose to pay at least a year's rent, or possibly four years' rent. You will never be able to get the smallholder to pay a rent which will pay the interest on those charges under the conditions of the Small Holdings Act. Therefore you must have something like this proposal unless you propose to stop smallholdings altogether. I am glad the Prime Minister is here because he has told us how necessary it is to get people on the land. If you get people on smallholdings you get a larger population than in any other class, because the smallholder not only cultivates his land, but brings his family up on it, and consequently is of double value. I am not one of those who says that the smallholder
cultivates his land better than other people. I do not think, unless he cultivates it more intensively, that he cultivates it as well as the large farmer. But apart from that, he has a national value for there is more of him on the land. I support this Amendment and hope the Government will make some concession on this prohibitive Clause which will prevent the acquisition of land for smallholdings.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I admit this Amendment deals with a difficult question, but I would really ask the House carefully to consider what is involved in it. In the first place this is involved, that you differentiate between the objects for which land is acquired under this Bill, and you say if it is for small holdings or for a national object compensation is not to be paid. If, on the other hand, it is for any ordinary object, as for instance, because the landlord wants to resume possession or to make a change of tenancy, then compensation is to be paid. I put it to the House, and as strongly as I can, that the motive of the landlord or the person who gives notice to quit does not in any way affect the tenant. The tenant is equally dispossessed of his holding and equally loses the farm which he understands, and equally, too, very likely has to leave his house, and it makes no difference to the tenant whether the notice to quit is a good one or a bad one, a public purpose or a private purpose.

Major WOOD: He will not have to leave his house.

7.0 P.M.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Not under the terms of the Amendment, but under the terms of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment he would. I am obliged to consider both of these Amendments together. It is said, if you are going to take land under certain circumstances for small holdings you are not to pay compensation. That means that the Government or the public authority or the local authority are not to pay compensation whereas the private landlord has to do so. The local authorities will be the persons who will probably be engaged in acquiring the land for the purpose of small holdings. Whatever the object may be, and however desirable it is to increase the number of small holders, the Government cannot assent to adopting
the principle that they are not to be liable for compensation and that the private landlord is to be liable. For that reason I cannot possibly accept the Amendment. We are confronted with a very big problem. We are endeavouring to acquire land all over the country, and we are doing it not unsuccessfully. We have already settled in England on the land over ten thousand ex-service men. But even though this Bill may add to the cost, we cannot attempt to evade the obligations we are putting on private individuals. I am asked what this extra amount is going to be. The compensation for disturbance will come to a considerable sum, but, as has been pointed out, it is nothing to the cost of equipment. It may add about one year to the cost of purchase plus the cost of removal. In any case if we go out into the market and buy estates, whether compulsorily or by private treaty, though my hon. Friend (Mr. Royce) seems to think it is always done compulsorily, which is by no means the case, and if we refuse to pay compensation to the tenants whom we dispossess, then we are acting differently from private landlords who will be bound to comply with the provisions of the Bill. We cannot possibly agree to put the Government and county councils and other public authorities into that position. The loss, whatever it may be, will not be passed on to the smallholder. The smallholders are to have the land at a fair rent, such rent as would ordinarily be obtained in the market and upon which a smallholder may be expected to make a living. It will not be passed on to the smallholder, and it will undoubtedly fall on the State, but if the State dispossesses farmers and turns them out of their houses and takes any part of the land, then I say that the State has got to pay compensation, just as much as any private individual. My hon. Friend has introduced into his particular Amendment a certain limitation. If a man is left with land to the value of £500 a year only then is this compensation not to be paid. I really cannot see why you ought to penalise a man because he happens to be a big and progressive farmer, when you do not penalise a man who is a rather smaller farmer. In any case, however, under the Sub-section we passed only half an hour ago, dealing with the multiple farm, and with com-
pensation in cases where a man has not disposed of the whole of his land, but where a farmer still possesses a portion of his land he farmed before, the compensation will be reduced. Therefore, that particular point is already met in the Bill. On the particular principle, so far as the tenant's position goes, it matters not to him what is the motive or the purpose for which he is turned out, but on the broad principle that the State cannot in this matter put the landlord in a worse position than the private landlord, we cannot agree to this proposal.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman very truly says that this is a big question. That is common ground. It is a big question because it is so vital to the development of one of the real remedies of our social trouble at the present moment, namely, the increase of the settlement of men upon the land. That, in itself, makes at once the differentiation to which my right hon. Friend refers, though he does not find it in the Amendment now before the House. He says, "Why should you make the difference between a man who has a rental holding of £500 a year and a man who is below that rent?" That is a differentiation which the State is con stantly making. We are engaged every year with the Budget, and the basis of the Budget is that those who can afford to pay pay a larger sum, and people who are below a certain limit pay a lesser sum. The hon. Member for North Midlothian (Sir J. Hope) brings up the usual trouble about the dividing line, and points out that if the rental is£499 the man does not pay, but if it is£501 he does pay. We are all familiar with that. You have to draw the line somewhere, and the Amendment which he had on the Paper was largely designed, so far as I can see, to bring this proposal into ridicule. Amendments of that kind, however, do not affect the real issue before the House, which is that if this extra compensation is to be paid there is not the slightest doubt that the increase of small holdings will be more retarded in the future than it has been up to the present. The State cannot find the extra money. That, I am afraid, becomes increasingly clear. The financial troubles of the State are large and increasing. If such an Amendment is carried, there is going to be a larger burden which an important body of
citizens will think an unjust burden. What do you constantly have here, every time you alter the Budget? You are always getting bodies of citizens represented here, who say, "If you put increased income tax on me, or increase the gradation of the super-tax or the death duties, you will be taxing me for the benefit of the whole community, and I strongly object to it "Nobody denies that these people have a grievance, and a heavier burden to carry. The Prime Minister, in his arguments in his historic Budgets, did not deny that the burdens were heavy. He said the hardships must be borne for the sake of the community for which he legislated. That is the basis on which I support this proposal. These large farmers are performing a very useful service to the community—anybody who says you are going to solve the agricultural problem by cutting up the whole of the agricultural land into little parcels is talking sheer stupidity—these people have rendered a great service, but alongside with development of the scientific large farmer the policy of the Government and of this House must be to develop the smallholder at all costs. Where is the money going to be found? You say: "Let the State find it." That means that nothing will be done.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, a great deal is being done.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am speaking from experience—

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is hardly fair. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that if the State finds the money, nothing will be done. May I point out that already in England and Wales, where the money has to be found by the State, we have bought 250,000 acres, and on that land we shall be able to settle 18,000 men?

Sir D. MACLEAN: I quite agree that it is not a fair way of putting it to say that nothing will be done. Of course, with the number of small-holders so urgent, the matter will not progress at the rate it ought to. I urge again that, hard as is the case of this particular class of citizen, some measures must be undertaken, and I say, from my experience in the past, and for whatever my opinion may be worth as to the finances of the future, that if you are going to look to the State to carry this extra relatively
small burden, the retardation of the creation of small holdings will be very great and harmful. On these grounds alone, I urge my right hon. Friend and the Government to give the Amendment much more friendly consideration than they seem at present inclined to do.

Captain FITZROY: What is really raised here is the basic question of policy. I am glad the Government has at last realised that the Amendment raises this question, but what I am afraid the Government do not realise is the dilemma in which they put their supporters. At one time they ask us to support measures for the acquisition of land and for land settlement, and their many attempts to make it easy to settle the ex-soldier and others on the land in a way of smallholdings. Now, we are asked to support a Bill which is diametrically opposed to that, and which renders it much more difficult to place these people on the land in small holdings. Which are we to do? Are we to support the Government in both directions, because they still find no difficulty whatever in riding two horses at the same time? That is not the case with their supporters. We find it extremely difficult one day to vote for one thing and the next day to vote for an exactly opposite thing. The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House is quite correct in his remarks as to the position of smallholders on the land. He points out that if this Bill is passed into law the expenses of the local authorities in acquiring the land in the first place would be increased, and that inevitably the rent which the smallholder will have to pay will be larger. The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench (Sir A. Boscawen) said that smallholders now were very favourably situated. I can assure him that smallholders who rent land from the local authorities at the present time are in a much worse position than those smallholders who rent small holdings from private purchasers. In the first place, they are called on to pay an economic rent, and to pay for a sinking fund for the purchase of the land. If this Bill becomes law they will now be called upon to pay compensation to the outgoing tenants. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Of course they will. The local authority will have to pay, and it will have to be made up through a higher purchase price being given for the land. If the Bill
becomes law, the smallholder's chance of being put on the land will diminish, and the amount which he has to pay when he gets on to the land will be increased.
There is no justification whatever in putting those tenants, who are dispossessed of their farms or part of their farms because the land is required for small holdings, in a worse position than tenants whose land is taken from them for some other purpose. You cannot discriminate between local authorities and other people who purchase land. It would be entirely unfair to do so, or to put local authorities in a preferential position compared with other people. We have embarked on this Bill, however. We have accepted the principle of the right to compensation on the occasion of notice to quit being given to a tenant, and I do not see how, on this Amendment, or indeed on any part of the Bill, we can depart from that principle, and I for one must support the Government on the question.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: This Debate has proceeded on the assumption that this Clause 7, giving compensation, will only affect smallholders who are set up under the Small Holdings Act. By far the larger number of smallholders in this country are set up by private owners and not under the Act at all. Private owners can set them up very much more cheaply. They are setting them up still, and very often they do it without the provision of any new buildings at all. At the present time they are the only persons who can set them up at a rent which they can afford to pay. If the Bill passes, you will not only make it more impossible for the public authorities to set up small holdings, but you will make it absolutely impossible for the private owner, because he has to compensate the tenant—he does not know whether on the higher or lower scale—before he can get possession of a farm and break it up for small holdings. Therefore the outlook for the smallholder will be very much worse in the future than has been represented in the course of this Debate. The Selborne Report said it was essential that a ladder of progress should be set up so that the agricultural labourer could rise to be a smallholder, a farmer, and so forth, but you are not going to put any rung of the ladder within the reach of the agricultural labourer at all. You are going to do exactly the opposite with him. At
the same time, I entirely agree with the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain FitzRoy) that if we are giving compensation to the farmers for disturbance, they ought to have it for all such occasions. In order to make it fair between all, ought not we to be most moderate, if we are going to give any compensation at all, with the sum that we accord under the present circumstances?

Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot resist pointing out to hon. Members opposite that on this Amendment it is obvious that the moment the burden which they have assisted in placing upon agriculture touches a class with whom they have a sympathy they want to take it off. They are trying by legislation to adjust a burden which they have placed upon the industry in accordance with their own political sympathies. That is what it comes to, and the thing is impossible. Either you must have compensation or you must not, and if you put compensation on a tremendous scale everybody has got to bear it, and it really is borne, not by this or that particular class, but by the industry as a whole. The argument that was used by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Royce) was perfectly just when he said that the burden of the extra compensation in this particular case would fall upon the smallholder. He might have said that the whole burden will directly or indirectly fall on the incoming tenant, and I make the assertion without hesitation that nine times out of ten change in the occupation of the land is for the better. That is admitted. The Prime Minister came and stated here, with all the emphasis of which he is capable, that one of the main objects of the Bill was to get more people on the land, and here is an Amendment moved to reduce the burden which will be placed by the Bill upon putting more people on the land. It will make it more difficult, and we have the argument used on the one side that this burden will fall upon the smallholder, and on the other side that it will fall on the State. Which does the House want? Either? Can we afford millions more than it will cost now to put people on the land?
I can confirm from my own personal experience what my hon. Friend has said. I was engaged here four months ago in negotiating with one of the innumerable farmers who sympathise with small
holdings, and who are willing to help where liberty is accorded to them, and where their sympathies are asked for as free Englishmen, and where they are not hustled, controlled, and dragooned by the State or anybody else. When men are free to exercise their own independent judgment they will come forward and make sacrifices. As I say, I was engaged in Scotland in carrying on negotiations with a large tenant to give up a very important part of his farm, in order that it might be constituted into small holdings for the neighboring men who were working in that district, and I negotiated that without the cost of a single penny. That man gave up his land freely, without compensation, because he was asked to do so as man to man, privately, and everybody concerned was friendly together and acting voluntarily. For that reason that land was obtained without the cost of a single farthing for any State official, and the rent which that large farmer was willing to accept was divided among the smallholders, who were all agreed that it was a fair rent, and, as I say, there was not a single farthing of compensation or of cost. That would now be absolutely impossible, and under this Bill every single time that you want land for a small holder you have got to run the whole thing through this expensive and costly State machine. No longer is anybody of any class who is concerned with the management of land to have the liberty of dealing with it under local conditions, with local goodwill, man to man, and believe me that it is personal considerations of man to man that count in this world. When A knows B, and C knows D, they can come together and make an arrangement among themselves, for their mutual benefit, but the moment the State steps in and says, "You shall only do it through our machinery," you get ill-will and undue cost, and the whole thing is muddled from beginning to end. Here you have a Bill which proposes to introduce this muddle, and hon. Members opposite, who have fathered the Bill all the way through, when the shoe is actually on their foot, find it is pinching them, and they want to kick it off. I do not much care whether the Amendment is carried or not. The Government have got to be consistent and bear their own burden, and they will see what the consequences of this Bill will be for agriculture when it is passed. As far as
the division goes, I do not care two pence which way it goes, but I shall vote for the Government.

Question put, "That the words,

Where land in the occupation of any tenant is acquired or made available for small holdings under the Small Holdings and

Allotments Act, 1908 to 1019, or under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, no compensation shall be payable under this section if the tenant after the determination of his tenancy of such land continues in the occupation of other land the yearly rental or value of which exceeds five hundred pounds'

Be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes,51;Noes, 187.

Division No. 368.]
AYES.
[7.20 p.m.


Cape, Thomas
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hogge, James Myles
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Sitch, Charles H.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Swan, J. E.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Midlothian)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Glanville, Harold James
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Glyn, Major Ralph
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Tootill, Robert


Graham, R. (Nelson and Coine)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Waterson, A. E.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Myers, Thomas
Wignall, James


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)
Williams, Col. P.(Middlesbrough, E.)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Rattan, Peter Wilson
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Hallas, Eldred
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Wintringham, T.


Hayward, Major Evan
Robertson, John



Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Royce, William Stapleton.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James
Major Mackenzie Wood and Lieut.




Colonel A. Murray.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Dixon, Captain Herbert
Johnson, Sir Stanley


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Donald, Thompson
Johnstone, Joseph


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Duncannon, Viscount
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lane-Fox, G. R.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Barnston, Major Harry
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Barrand, A. R.
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Lindsay, William Arthur


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lloyd, George Butler


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)


Betterton, Henry B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lorden, John William


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Lort-Williams. J.


Blair, Reginald
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gilbert, James Daniel
M'Guffin, Samuel


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Bruton, Sir James
Goff, Sir R. Park
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Greig, Colonel James William
Maddocks, Henry


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Gretton, Colonel John
Manville, Edward


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Middlebrook, Sir William


Casey, T. W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, William Lane


Cautley, Henry S.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv' p' l, W. D' by)
Moles, Thomas


Chadwick, Sir Robert
Hambro, Captain Angus Vaidemar
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Morden, Colonel H. Grant


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Morrison, Hugh


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Neal, Arthur


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hinds, John
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hopkins, John W. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Courthope, Major George L.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Parker, James


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Howard, Major S. G.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Davidson, J. C.C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Perring, William George


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Jesson, C.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Pratt, John William
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Willoughby, Lieut-Col. Hon. Claud


Pulley, Charles Thornton
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Purchase, H. G.
Steel, Major S. Strang
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Sutherland, Sir William
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Reid, D. D.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Wise, Frederick


Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Townley, Maximilian G.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Tryon, Major George Clement
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Rutherford. Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Turton, E. R.
Woolcock, William James U.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Vickers, Douglas
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)



Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Whitla, Sir William
Captain Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

CLAUSE 8.—(Extension of tenancies under leases for a term of years.)

(3) This Section shall not apply to any tenancy granted for a term expiring on some date earlier than the first day of January nineteen hundred and twenty-two, but shall apply notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.

Mr. E. WOOD: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "but shall apply notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary."
This is an Amendment designed to improve the drafting of the Bill, and will make it, I think, a little more intelligible to the lay reader.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I accept the Amendment, which improves the drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. E. WOOD: I beg to move after Sub-section (3) to insert a new Subsection—
(4) In any case to which this Section shall apply, it shall apply notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May I ask for a little explanation of the effect of this Amendment?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: This is merely consequential on the other Amendment. We have taken out some words, and we are bound to put in other words, and this is an improvement in the drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Amendment of law as to improvements.)

(1) Where the landlord of any holding refuses or within a reasonable time fails to consent in manner required by Section 2 of the Act of 1908 to the making of any improvement comprised in Part I of the First Schedule to that Act, not being an improvement comprised in the Third Schedule to that Act, either absolutely or except upon
such terms as the tenant is unwilling to accept, the agricultural committee for the area in which the holding is situate may, on the application of the tenant and after giving the landlord or his representative an opportunity of being heard, direct that the improvement shall be treated for the purposes of the Act of 1908 as if it were an improvement comprised in Part II of the First Schedule to that Act, and any direction given by the agricultural committee under this Sub-section may be given subject to such conditions, if any, as the committee think fit.

(2) The Minister may by Regulation substitute such percentages or period as he thinks fit for the percentages and period mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 1908.

(3) Where a tenant desires to make on his holding or any part of his holding any improvement comprised in the Third Schedule to the Act of 1908 and the landlord refuses, or within a reasonable time fails, to agree in writing that the holding or that part of the holding shall be treated as a market garden, the agricultural committee for the area in which the holding is situate may, on the application of the tenant and after hearing the landlord or his representative, direct that Section 42 of the. Act of 1908 shall, either in respect of all the improvements comprised in the said Third Schedule or in respect of some only of those improvements, apply to the holding or to that part thereof, and the said Section shall apply accordingly as respects any improvements executed after the date on which the direction is given.

Any direction given by an agricultural committee under this Section shall be subject to such conditions, if any, as the committee may think fit to attach to the direction, and where any such direction is given the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) If the tenancy is terminated by notice to quit given by the tenant or by reason of the tenant becoming bankrupt or compounding with his creditors, the tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of any such improvements as are specified in the direction unless the tenant not later than one month after the date on which the notice to quit is given or the date of the bankruptcy or composition, as the case may be, or such later date as may be agreed, produces to the landlord an offer in writing by a substantial and otherwise suitable person
135
(being an offer which is to hold good for a period of one month from the date on which it is produced), to accept a tenancy of the holding from the termination of the existing tenancy thereof, and on the terms and conditions of that tenancy, and, subject as hereinafter provided, to pay to the outgoing tenant all compensation for improvements payable under the Act of 1908 as amended by any other Act, or under the contract of tenancy, and the landlord fails to accept the offer within two months after the production thereof; and
(b) If the landlord accepts any such offer the incoming tenant shall pay to the landlord on demand all sums payable to him by the outgoing tenant on the termination of the tenancy in respect of rent or breach of contract or otherwise in respect of the holding, and any amount so paid may, subject to any agreement between the outgoing tenant and incoming tenant, be deducted by the incoming tenant from any compensation payable by him to the outgoing tenant.

(4) The powers under this Section of an agricultural committee may in the case of a holding situate in a county borough for which an agricultural committee has not been appointed be exercised by the Minister.

(5) In the exercise of their powers under this Section the agricultural committee and the Minister shall have regard to the likelihood of the land being required for any purpose other than agriculture.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
This Clause is one of the most important Clauses in the Bill, and one of the most complicated. It begins by referring to the Act of 1908, and, unless you have the Act of 1908 before you, it is almost impossible to understand what the actual effect of Clause 9 will be. The Act of 1908 says:
Compensation under this Act shall not be payable in respect of any improvement comprised in Part I of the First Schedule hereto, unless the landlord of the holding has, previously to the execution of the improvement, consented in writing to the making of the improvement, and any such consent may be given by the landlord unconditionally, or upon such terms as to compensation or otherwise as may be agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, and, if any such agreement is made, any compensation payable under the agreement shall be substituted for compensation under this Act.
Unless you look at Part I of the First Schedule there is not very much meaning to that, and this is what Part I says:
"Improvements to which consent of landlord is required:

(1) Erection, alteration or enlargement of buildings.
136
(2) Formation of silos.
(3) Laying down of permanent pasture.
(4) Making and planting of osier beds."
and a large number of other things. The result of Sub-section (1) of this Clause, as I understand it, is that if the agricultural committee agrees, then the tenant has a right to compel the landlord to provide all these various improvements, amounting in all to sixteen, some of which I have read. In my part of the country there have been two or three silos erected, and I am informed—I am not erecting them myself—that the cost of erecting a modern silo upon the Canadian system, not by any manner of means a large one, is £500. Under this Clause, supposing a tenant chooses to say, "I think it would be a good thing to have a silo," he can go to the agricultural committee, and the agricultural committee can compel the landlord to erect a silo at the cost of £500. I do not know whether silos are going to be successful or not, but it does seem to me to be impossible to suggest that an agricultural committee can go to a man and compel him to erect a silo.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: They cannot do it.

Sir F. BANBURY: Why not?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: They cannot compel a landlord to do it. They can either make the landlord do it or enable it to be done, and then claim compensation on the basis of the value to the incoming tenant.

Sir F. BANBURY: That seems to me to be exactly the same thing. They can do it themselves, and claim compensation from the landlord, or make the landlord do it. I cannot see there is any difference. If I am wrong, I am only too glad to think I am wrong.

Mr. E. WOOD: You are right.

Sir F. BANBURY: Take the erection, alteration or enlargement of buildings. The Government have insisted on their ploughing-up Clause. Take a farm of 300 acres. It may not have more than 30 or 40 acres arable, and it may, in parts of Leicestershire, for instance, have no arable land at all. With this policy of ploughing-up, it may be a very considerable portion of these grass farms are ploughed up, and as soon as they are ploughed up, it may be necessary at once to erect buildings. The cost of buildings,
I do not know, but I should say in all probability at present prices you could not erect anything like a small set of farm buildings under £4,000. At any rate, it will be very near that sum.

Captain FITZROY: More.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not wish in any kind of way to exaggerate. Take it, for the sake of argument, at £3,500, and £500 for the silo. That is £4,000. Whether the landlord has to find it in the way of compensation or money at the present moment, if he had eight or nine farms—and that would not be a large estate—he might easily be run into an expenditure of something like £30,000 on the whole of his estate. Where is he to get it? I am told he would have to pay 7 per cent, interest. His estate may be mortgaged already, but suppose he has to mortgage it, is it not very. probable that the majority of people in this country who have money will not readily consent to leave it on mortgage of real property after the experience of the legislation introduced by the Government? I am inclined to think there will be great difficulty in obtaining loans on mortgage.
I would like to deal with the Sub-section which deals with market gardens. The Act of 1908 says that a tenant shall not turn his farm or holding into a market garden without the consent of the landlord. As I understand this Bill, it does away with that safeguard in the Act of 1908, and compels a landlord to allow a tenant to turn his holding into a market garden, or fruit farm, or something of that sort. If the tenant goes, enormous compensation will have to be paid again by the landlord, and it was for that reason in the Act of 1908 that it was expressly stated that the tenant should not be able to turn a holding into a fruit farm or market garden without the express consent in writing of the landlord. All that is going to be swept away. I really do hope that the Government will pause before they put this additional burden, not on the landlord particularly, but upon the whole industry.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: My right hon. Friend with very great consistency moves to leave out all the principal Clauses of this Bill. As I believe he hates the Bill as a whole, I have no particular com-
plaint to make against his attitude, but whatever may be said against the other Clauses which he has tried to omit, I really do not think he has got a good case in respect to this Clause. This is a very simple Clause dealing with what has been for many years an acknowledged difficulty. There have been certain improvements called permanent improvements, which, as the law stands to-day, can only be carried out with the consent of the landlord. In some cases no difficulty arises. Progressive landlords allow tenants to carry out improvements which they regard as necessary for the proper cultivation, or the improvement of the cultivation of the farm. But you have certain landlords who are unprogressive, who stand in the way of progress. They will not allow a go-ahead farmer to carry out improvements which are real improvements, and which will greatly enhance the value of the land, the amount of food grown, and will profit both the farm, and ultimately the estate. They unreasonably refuse. I do not say it often happens, but I do say it does happen; and there is a difficulty with which we have to deal. I have very often been taunted with not having followed the Selborne Commission. My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Royds) has frequently taunted me with that. He cannot do so in respect of this particular Clause. The Selborne Commission saw the difficulty. They saw how one unprogressive landlord might stop improvement in agriculture, it might be on a big estate, and therefore they provided means whereby the difficulty could be got over. Their plan is very similar to that of the Bill, except that instead of going to the Agricultural Committee, which we have put in the Bill, they suggested a certain panel of assessors to whom the tenant could appeal. We settled the question by putting the Agricultural Committee in the Bill.
This panel of assessors was to be set up for the various counties, or groups of counties. One-third were to be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, one-third by the chairmen of the county councils, and one-third by the President of the Surveyors' Institute. If we had adopted that plan our Bill would have been absolutely on "all fours" with the recommendations of the Selborne Commission. Why did we not do it? Simply because since the Selborne Report was issued
these County Agricultural Committees have been set up. We thought that as they had been set up they would naturally be the proper bodies to do this work for which Lord Selborne and his colleagues suggested panels of assessors as a sort of ad hoc authorities, the Agricultural Committees being then nonexistent. We assert, therefore, that we wish to allow the tenant to go to the Agricultural Committee if he cannot get permission for permanent improvements, and the Agricultural Committee can give that permission. What happens then? The improvements will fall under Part II of the Schedule. My right hon. Friend rightly says that notice is to be given to the landlord, the effect of which is this: either the landlord has himself to do the improvements, in which case he Can charge interest—and we take powers under this Clause to vary the rate of interest, because existing rates are quite unsuitable here in view of the present value of money—or else the tenant may himself execute the improvements, and in that case he can get compensation, not at once, but at the end of his tenancy, but only such compensation as represents the value to the incoming tenant. If he does something that is not wise, and which does not really improve the holding; if he does something extraordinary, or following out some craze of his own which is not of real value and does not improve the value of the holding at all—that is, to the incoming tenant—naturally there would be no compensation.
I realise, however—and I did from the beginning, in the way this Clause was discussed in Committee—that there was some objection to the utilization of the Agricultural Committee as a judge in all cases as to whether an improvement should or should not be permitted. The reason for that is a certain distrust of some of the agricultural committees. On the whole, I think they are well constituted, but I know there are some—I am not going to specify any, that would not be fair—but there are some the composition of which has created a good deal of criticism. It might be said in some cases that the landlords were being compelled to allow improvements at their cost, or for which the tenant could get compensation by per-
sons acting as judges in whom they had no confidence. In Committee, Amendments were moved to substitute an arbitrator for the agricultural committee; other Amendments were moved giving an appeal from the agricultural committee to the arbitrator. The appeal from the agricultural committee to the arbitrator would not be a good plan. It would be cumbrous. If you send the matter to the agricultural committee, I think there should be no appeal against it. There was a suggestion to exclude the agricultural committee altogether. In many cases, however, they carry the confidence of the agricultural community; and also, the point settled by them will be done cheaply, whereas an arbitrator is much more expensive. But I admit there is something—a good deal—of force in the argument that the landlord should not be compelled to go to the agricultural committee. I am, therefore, prepared—and I hope this answer may shorten the proceedings on this Clause—to accept the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. T. Davies), the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood), and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire (Lieut.-Colonel Murrough Wilson), as follows:
(3) If in any case a landlord or tenant by notice in writing given to the other party shall so require the power which under this Section may be exercised by a committee shall in that ease be exercised by an arbitrator appointed and acting under and in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1908.
I am willing that the arbitrator shall take the place of the agricultural committee. I think that will go a very long way to meet the objections to the Clause. My right hon. Friend, in moving the rejection of the Clause, referred to the manner in which the Clause deals with the subject of market-gardens. He asked me how the Clause would apply to market-gardens. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of land which might be used beneficially for market-gardens, but a deadlock has occurred in-the matter of compensation. By the Market-Gardens Compensation Act, very heavy compensation is payable by the landlord to th3 tenant if he allows the holding, or part of the holding, to be used as a market-garden. That compensation has been so heavy that in most cases the landlords
have refused to allow the holdings to be used as market-gardens, and consequently intensive cultivation has been checked. We propose to get over that by applying what is called the Evesham Custom, a custom which, as hon. Members know, has worked extraordinarily well in the Evesham Valley. What generally happens is this: that when the tenant goes he produces another suitable person, who takes his place and takes over his liability, and the only case in which the landlord would pay compensation would be if he unreasonably refused to accept the successor as tenant. We propose to give legal validity in this Bill to the Evesham Custom, and apply it to the whole of the country. It has worked extremely well, and I see no reason why it should not work well all over. Here, again, I am prepared to meet the House in regard to Amendments. I wish to make the matter as clear as I can. There is an Amendment in the name of the same three hon. Gentlemen to whom I referred a few moments ago. It is in Sub-section (3), after the word "representative" ["the landlord or his representative"], to insert the words

"and after being satisfied that the holding or part of the holding is suitable for the purposes of market gardening, and that it is in the national interest that it should be so treated and that there is no other land in the immediate neighbourhood of the holding or part of the holding suitable for market garden purposes and reasonably available to the tenant.
The first part of this I am willing to accept, to the effect that the local committee or arbitrators must be satisfied that the holding or part of the holding is suitable for the purposes of market gardening before they give permission to turn the holding into a market garden. There is another Amendment, I think, on the next page—

Mr. E. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to consider favourably the Amendment immediately below the one to which he refers which directs the agricultural committee to take into consideration whether the land is likely to be needed for building, commercial, or public purposes?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, Sir; I am not willing to accept that, for the simple reason that the substance is already in the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Sub-section (5) of the Clause he will see the matter there dealt with.

Mr. WOOD: But it does not mention the five years' limit.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, I do not think you can lay down a definite limit. There are market gardens and vegetable gardens which could easily be started for less than five years, and I do not think we ought to put in an absolute limit of that sort, but there is already in the Bill, as I say, that instruction where the land is likely to be required for other than agricultural purposes. There is a further Amendment, the effect of which is that if the landlord desires and only a part of the holding is to be treated as a market garden, he can demand that the holding shall be a separate one. Here again is, I think, a reasonable Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: There are four Amendments.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Well, the one to which I refer reads as follows:
(c) If the direction relates to part only of the holding the direction may, on the application of the landlord, be given subject to the condition that the tenant shall consent to the division of the holding into two parts (one such part being the part to which the direction relates) to be held at rents agreed by the landlord and tenant or in default of agreement settled by the committee, but otherwise on the same terms and conditions as the original holding, so far as applicable.
This, I think, is a reasonable proposal, which I am prepared to accept.
8.0 P.M.
I have gone into these matters of detail because I want to make my position perfectly clear. I think the Clause is necessary, but to meet the deadlock that very often arises the Clause has been drawn in precisely the terms recommended by the Selborne Report. The Selborne Report recommended the legalisation and the adoption of the Evesham custom. It was in view of that fact that I am trying to guard against any real injustice by either the landlord or the tenant in regard to the appointment of an arbitrator where they distrust the agricultural committee. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press this Amendment to reject this Clause to a division.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: What happens if either the landlord or the tenant objects?

Sir J. HOPE: What happens in regard to the arbitrator in Scotland?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The normal course will be to go to the agricultural committee, but if either party objects there will be an arbitrator. If they both agree of course the case will go to the agricultural committee. As to what is to happen in Scotland, that must be raised on the Scottish Clause. As the Bill stands now I believe the Scottish landlord takes the place of the arbitrator in England, but that must be argued on the Scottish Clause, and that point is not involved at this stage.

Captain FITZROY: The case which the right hon. Gentleman has made on this Clause has no doubt made it very much easier to debate this Amendment, and I for one do not propose to support the Amendment to delete the Clause. This appears to me to be a convenient time to discuss the whole of the Clause, and that course will probably shorten the discussion. My chief fear of the Clause was that T think this accumulation of unknown liabilities which may be put upon the landlord will have the effect of preventing capital being invested in the land and driving it away. What we want more than anything else, in order to develop the land to its utmost capacity, is not only to retain the capital now invested in the land, but to induce further capital to be invested in it.
I have an Amendment on the Paper which deals very much with the same 'question as the last Amendment to this Clause, which the right hon. Gentleman has told us he is willing to accept. That, however, does not meet the case entirely. No doubt it meets the case as the Bill appears in print, but this Bill has been considerably altered by the Government having re-introduced the Ploughing up Orders into this Bill. It is quite true that under the 1908 Act, to which this refers, the improvements which an owner may be called upon to make are to be considered as having regard to the interests of an incoming tenant. If the Bill became an Act as printed, that might be sufficient, but I have put down words "which would materially alter the character of the holding." That would be very satisfactory now these Ploughing up Orders are introduced. In the particular part of the country which I represent
there are many holdings with practically no buildings on them, and if these Ploughing up Orders are put into use you would undoubtedly alter the whole character of those holdings, and you would call upon the owner to incur a very large expenditure in equipping the farm, which would then become a mixed or arable farm, with buildings suitable for carrying on farming of that kind. That would materially alter the character of the holdings, but, at the same time, it would not affect the incoming tenant.
When an arbitrator was considering whether these buildings are to be erected on the farm he would only consider what the effect would be upon the incoming tenant, and he might order these buildings to be erected. If you introduce the words "materially alter the character of the holding," then an agricultural committee or arbitrator would have considerable hesitation in making an order for the erection of buildings on a farm of that kind. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take that point into his further consideration and see whether he cannot include words of that character in the Amendment which he says he is going to accept. In my Amendment the liability is limited to one year's rent, and no doubt, in the ordinary course of events, these Ploughing up Orders, having been introduced, one year's rent would be quite sufficient for any improvements which he might be called upon to make on a farm in which it was not proposed to materially alter the character of that farm. If you are going to turn grass farms into arable farms, or mixed farms into dairy farms, it is obvious that not only will the words "materially alter the character of the holding" be required, but we also require words limiting the liability of the owner, for otherwise that liability is an unknown quantity, and I am convinced it will have the effect of preventing fresh capital being put into the land and will make those now owning land much more anxious to part with it than they are now.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I regret that owing to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with these Amendments it was quite impossible for me to follow him, and know exactly what the effect was going to be. I do not think it matters very much so far as the rejection of this Clause is concerned, because
no doubt most of us will be prepared to allow this Clause to go through and deal with the Amendments afterwards. I think it would have been more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman had waited TO bear what the House had to say about the Amendment. As the Amendment has been raised, I must enter a vigorous pro test against the absence from the Treasury Bench of anyone representing Scottish interests. The right hon. Gentle man said that the Scottish aspect of the case must be dealt with on the Scottish Clause. That means to say that the Scottish Members are to accept this Amendment without knowing how it is going to affect Scotland, and then, having accepted that, we have to wait until we reach the Scottish Clause, and we are asked to take something now which may have an injurious effect upon Scottish interests. I protest against the absence of the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate while this Clause is being discussed. I wish to put a definite question to the Solicitor-General. I want to know how this Clause will affect Scotland. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he proposes to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Wood), which is to this effect—

Mr. SPEAKER: Would it not be better to deal with that question when we reach the Amendment? We are now discussing the Clause as a whole.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: In order to gain the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite for this Clause the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated to them the Amendments he will be willing to accept, and he has explained what those Amendments mean, although he did not explain them from the Scottish point of view. I am now asking the Government to explain this point.

Mr. SPEAKER: The time to give those explanations will be when the Amendments are reached. The Minister would probably have been blamed if he had not at the outset given some sort of indication of the Amendments which he was prepared to accept. It seems that he is to be equally blamed when he has indicated the Amendments he is willing to accept, and it seems impossible to please the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The right hon. Gentleman not only indicated those Amendments, but he explained them.

Mr. SPEAKER: But they were not his Amendments to explain. Those Amendments are the private property of other hon. Members, and when we reach them they can be discussed fully and possibly at more than the full length.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: In that case all I wish to say is that as it is quite impossible to understand what is in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary on this question with regard to the Amendments he proposes to accept, it it impossible for me to support him on this Clause.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid this discussion puts us into a little difficulty. In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has told us in regard to the Amendments he is willing to accept, I think a good many of my hon. Friends would not desire to vote against the Clause, particularly in the matter of the Evesham custom, which seems a reasonable proposal. I think there are a good many hon. Members who wish to vote for the next Amendment to omit Sub-section (1). I do not know whether it would be possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to take the discussion on this Amendment, and then put the next Amendment on the understanding that there would be no further discussion upon it.

Mr. SPEAKER: That seems to me a great waste of time. Why not take the discussion now, because Sub-section (1) forms part of the Clause?

Mr. PRETYMAN: My suggestion is that Sub-section (1) should be put and divided upon without any further discussion, and then the Division would be on the second Amendment instead of the first.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already put the question, that the first seven lines of the Clause stand part of the Bill. If that be objected to, the proper course is to vote against it, and if it be not objected to the proper course is not to vote against it.

Mr. PRETYMAN: We want to vote against Sub-section (1) as a whole

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member objects to the whole of the Subsection, he must vote against the first
seven lines of the Clause, and that is the question now before the House.

Mr. PRETYMAN: That does not commit us to voting against the whole Bill. We do not want to do that; we only want to vote against Sub-section (1).

Mr. SPEAKER: There it is. The first seven lines form part of Sub-section (1). If the right hon. Gentleman does not like what is in those first seven lines he must, obviously, vote against it.

Mr. E. WOOD: Would it be possible, if this Amendment were disposed of, to call the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Grantham?

Mr. SPEAKER: If it is disposed of, and the first seven lines stand part of the Bill, and if hon. Members wish to vote against the rest of the Sub-section, I should like to see an Amendment to that effect.

Mr. LANE-FOX: Can we vote against part of the first seven lines?

Mr. SPEAKER: You cannot do that. While in Committee you may vote against every word and every line of the Bill, but hon. Members must remember that we are now on the Report stage. The Bill was, I think, five weeks in Committee, and it was there thoroughly thrashed out. At the present stage we are only revising the work of the Committee.

Mr. ACLAND: Might I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) would practically gain all that he wants by Dividing on the question now being put. If he succeeded in getting these seven lines deleted there would still remain Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) to which, I understand, he is not opposed.

Mr. PRETYMAN: As long as it is understood that in dividing against this Amendment I am only dividing against Sub-section (1), I shall be satisfied. My objections to Sub-section (1) are twofold. The first is that it is cumulative. If it stood by itself it would not be so objectionable. It has one great advantage over Clause 7, and that is we are actually going to get something done upon the land which will be to the benefit of the industry. Money is to be spent by landlord or tenant which, we may hope, will add to the production of food. If the Clause stood by itself, with the Amend-
ment which the Minister proposes to accept, I should only then ask for some modification of the Schedule, as to which I shall have a word to say in a minute. But this is a cumulative burden to be added and to be read with the burden placed on the industry by Clauses 4 and 7. As my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, reading Clauses 4 and 9 together you get the power of issuing Ploughing-up Orders covering large areas of land. Under Clause 4 and under Clause 7 you compel an expenditure which is to be borne, directly or indirectly, by the landlord under the whole of this Bill. When you take Clauses 7 and 9 together, in the first place, you have a cumulative burden which will result in the owner of the land having to pay heavy compensation which may amount, approximately, to two years' rent in addition to the ordinary tenant right. That immense potential liability is placed upon him by Clause 9. There is a direct way in which the two Clauses will work to add to the burden. Under Clause 7 one of the most important items of compensation is the year's rent. Under this Clause, if a landlord spends money at the instance or request of the tenant and the tenant agrees to pay interest on it, that interest will be added to the rent, and will thereby directly add to the amount of compensation the landlord will have to pay in case he requires to resume possession of the land. Clauses 9 and 7 taken together add a very heavy burden, and therefore, so far as the first Sub-section is concerned, I am bound to vote against it.
The other point is the extraordinarily comprehensive character of the First Schedule of the Act of 1908 which is now to be dealt with under this Clause. It is pretty obvious to anyone who reads over the Schedule, which contains sixteen items, many very comprehensive, that it was drawn not at all with the idea with which this Clause is drawn—of scheduling certain lists of improvements which might really be vitally necessary and which the landlord might be compelled to execute or become responsible for—it was drawn with the intention of covering the whole ground of possible agricultural improvement. It could have been drawn up with no other object. Why should this House stand in the way of any landlord or tenant who desires to execute an agricultural improvement of any kind or sort or description? It would have been most
unwise if in preparing a schedule of agreed improvements it had been limited, but the Government in the hurried legislation of to-day did not take the trouble to examine it. They simply lifted the whole Schedule. It is easy and simple to say that what men are prepared to do jointly one man might together with the Agricultural Committee have the power to enforce as a whole on the other party. I am sure that if the Solicitor-General had been provided with agricultural assistance when he got out the Schedule he would have seen that it would have been better to leave particular items to stand in the Act of 1908 as matters of agreement between landlord and tenant, and to have taken out other special items which might properly be dealt with as they are in Clause 9. Had he done that I think the Bill would have been more presentable, and more in accord with common sense and thoughtful consideration for the interests concerned. Nothing of the kind has been done. The whole Schedule is lifted bodily. Paragraph (1), relating to the erection, alteration, and enlargement of buildings, is taken without any modification or qualification whatever. Then, again, paragraph (7), relating to the making or improvement of roads and bridges, might run to any sort of expense, while the application of water, which is referred to in paragraph (8), may be a vast business. I know that the Solicitor-General will say, and quite rightly, that he does not want me to exaggerate my case, that matters of this kind will be guarded by the arbitrator and the Agricultural Committee, and that we must not expect impossibilities. I admit that there will be great force in that answer, but I want to point out that the real mischief of this does not lie so much in its actual application, which in a great many cases may, perhaps, even be beneficial. I do not want to say that the principle which lies behind this Clause has not a great deal of good in it; but the point is that, by keeping this maximum Schedule and by the accumulation of these three Clauses, you are threatening capital out of the land. The number of cases in which this will occur may not be great, but there will be the fear that it may occur, Bill contains nothing to protect landlords or owners of land against having an immense burden, which they cannot
bear, put upon them by this kind of legislation.
The Government do not seem to have made any attempt to modify the feeling of insecurity that will be created in those who desire to expend capital in the purchase of land. They have brought in this Bill for the purpose of increasing the security of the tenant, but I venture to suggest that the security of the owner is at least as important as the security of the tenant, particularly when so many small owners are coming into existence. The more small owners that come into existence the better, and it is not to the advantage of the country or of the industry to destroy the security of the owner in order to give more security to the tenant. I do not think that that point has been guarded as it should have been. This Clause appears to me to have been drawn without the slightest regard to the alarm that it will cause, and to the accumulated burden that it will place upon any capital invested in land. Therefore, when this question is put, taking it as against the Clause, I shall certainly vote against it, although, as far as regards the Evesham custom, which is referred to later in the Clause, I have every sympathy with it. It affords a method whereby the land can be made to produce a larger amount of food without throwing any undue burden upon the industry, because the man who plants will have to take the risk unless he can pass it on to someone else. On the whole, I prefer the words as they stand in the Bill to the limit of five years suggested in one of the proposed Amendments. I do not think there ought to be either a maximum or a minimum. I was alarmed by the interjection of the Parliamentary Secretary that it might be possible to make an improvement which would become fruitful in less than five years. If it were obvious that within three or four years the land would be required for some purpose of development, it might, if that view were accepted, be considered wise to allow the land to be turned into a market garden, and, when the land was taken for the development purposes for which it was obviously intended, the unfortunate owner would have to pay compensation. I hardly think that the Government meant that, but the light hon. Gentleman interjected those words, and they frightened me. I do not know whether he really realised what he
was saying. Trees planted in a market garden do not do much in five years. They are only just beginning to bear, and to turn land into a market garden which, after five years, is to be used for housing, development, or some commercial purpose, would seem to be a most uneconomic and foolish procedure. That one man should undertake the expense, and that the loss should be put upon another, seems to be ridiculous. From the words of the Bill, I take it that the Government recognise and desire to provide for that; and I should have accepted that without any comment had it not been for the right hon. Gentleman's interjection. I hope, however, that the arbitrators will not take that view.

Mr. E. WOOD: Like my right hon. Friend who has just sat down, I find myself in a position of some difficulty. According to the order in which this Clause is being discussed, if we proceed to a Division on this Amendment, that Division will, in fact, be a Division for or against Sub-section (1). I rather hope that my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Fitzroy), who announced his intention of voting against the Amendment, on the hypothesis that in doing so he would be voting for the Clause, will feel able to reconsider his decision if it is made clear that in this Vote we shall only be voting on Sub-section (1).

Sir E. POLLOCK: The first seven lines.

Mr. WOOD: I do not want again to cover the ground which has already been covered so admirably by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman), but I want to offer one or two considerations to the Solicitor-General, and, if I can, to explain to him why I do not think that, if we divide against Sub-section (1), we shall be acting unreasonably or in any way that is undeserving of his sympathy and support.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): We had better not get astray. The question is not whether Sub-section (1) is carried.

Mr. WOOD: I am not sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you were present in the House, but we had a long discussion with Mr. Speaker on this point.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is why I intervene now. If this Question be put from the Chair and negatived, then Clause 9 disappears. Therefore, the House is not voting on Sub-section (1). If the Amendment be negatived, then the first seven lines of the Clause stand part; but in the event of the Question being negatived, the whole Clause goes, and it is no use our going on discussing it on the supposition that the House is voting on Sub-section (1).

Mr. WOOD: May I say, with the utmost respect, that, as far as I follow your ruling, it appears to me to differ from that given by Mr. Speaker?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Not in the least.

Mr. WOOD: If I may say so with great respect, what emerged from Mr. Speaker's ruling, at least in the minds of all my friends and of myself, was that the only way in which it was possible to vote against Sub-section (1) was to vote against the first seven lines of the Clause. I may have been wrong as to that, but I think I was substantially right in thinking that it was the only opportunity we had of voting against Sub-section (1) if we so desired.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: May I say that that was certainly my reading of what Mr. Speaker said. I thought that, if these lines were taken out on the Division, that would remove Sub-section (1) from the Clause, and that we should then go on to the Amendments coming afterwards.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What is quite clear is that the Question put from the Chair is that the first seven lines of the Clause stand part of the Bill. If that be negatived, those seven lines do not stand part of the Bill, and in effect the Amendment under discussion—namely, to leave out Clause 9—has been carried. Then the whole Clause falls. But, in the event of the seven lines standing part, then, of course, there is the possibility of discussing Sub-section (1).

Mr. WOOD: May I ask your ruling as to how it is possible for anyone who may wish to see the whole of Clause 9 passed with the exception of Sub-section (1), in view of your ruling that if by any chance the first seven lines were negatived that would have the effect of negativing the whole Clause.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman withdraws his Amendment then the hon. Member can move to leave out Sub-section (1)

Sir F. BANBURY: As I understand the position, it is this: Mr. Speaker proposed the Question that the first seven lines stand part of the Bill. We cannot negative that because the Government would not consent to it. My hon. Friends desire to move the omission of Sub-section (1) of Clause 9. If the Question is put that the first seven lines stand part, and that Question is carried—and there can be no doubt it will be carried—it will be impossible to move the omission of Sub-section (1) because the first seven lines of that Sub-section will already have been agreed to by the House. Therefore the only way in which my hon. Friend can vote against Sub-section (1) standing part, is by voting against the first seven lines.

Mr. LANE-FOX: Do I understand that if the right hon. Gentleman withdraws his present Amendment you will then allow Sub-section (1) to be put to the House. If so, I appeal to him to do so.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I certainly thought my hon. Friends correctly understood the ruling of Mr. Speaker. I understood Mr. Speaker definitely to say that it was a practice which involved something like dilatory conduct to discuss this Amendment to leave out the Clause and also to discuss Sub-section (1). The suggestion now made is one which was definitely rejected by Mr. Speaker. So I understood, and I think my hon. Friends agree with me. Therefore he said that he would not allow them, if the Amendment were withdrawn, to discuss the deletion of Sub-section (1). Hence we proceeded upon the question that the first seven lines stand part, with this reservation granted to my hon. Friends, that if they voted that these seven lines should be deleted from the Clause their attitude should not be held to involve the fact that they were no longer able to criticise the question of the other Amendments which Mr. Speaker will allow. In other words, they had freedom in the later parts of Clause 9 and they were to have dealt with Sub-section (1) on this question of whether or not the seven lines stand part.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I entirely concur with what has been said by the Solicitor-General, with the further proviso that what we understood was that voting for this Amendment was our only way of expressing our desire to vote against Sub-section (1), and it would be understood that in voting against this Amendment we did not desire to delete the whole Clause but only to delete Sub-section (1). That was clearly understood, and we were to discuss it on that basis.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It makes no difference. I quite understand it and I have not given any different ruling from that. I am pointing out the effect of the Amendment, that if it be carried the whole of the Clause falls. That must be borne in mind when hon. Members are speaking to the Amendment.

Mr. ACLAND: To make the story complete it is necessary to add—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We have carried this far enough now.

Mr. E. WOOD: It is very difficult to disentangle the Debate on the general Clause from the Debate on the merits or demerits of Sub-section (1). Though the pronouncement made at an earlier stage by the Parliamentary Secretary, as to his willingness to accept certain Amendments that appear lower down on the Paper, is valuable and represents a great sign of willingness to meet us in view of what passed in Committee when the Amendments were suggested, yet from my point of view I do not think it goes quite far enough, and I want to put to the Solicitor-General why I do not think on second thoughts that this Sub-section (1) is from their point of view necessary. My right hon. Friend read out a list of the improvements to which the first part of the Schedule referred. Hon. Members who may not be very familiar with all the items of that Schedule might be excused for thinking that if a landowner did not do what was supposed to be reasonable he was to blame, and was unreasonably refusing his consent. That is the language of the Clause. But I think hon. Members will agree that if a landowner does not on the whole, speaking generally, give his consent to the improvements provided for in the first Schedule, the reason is not that he is unreasonably unwilling, but that he really
does not see his way to undertake the liability that the Schedule imposes on him.
It is quite evident that if that be the real reason, the fear of a financial burden, especially in these days when expenses and that kind of charges are at least trebled, you will not get over the difficulty by merely getting an agricultural committee or arbitrator power to make an order. The only effect of that is that if I, an impecunious landowner, find myself unable to give my consent to a tenant who wishes either to build silos or erect buildings and all the rest of it, the only effect of an arbitrator or committee making an order is in fact to confer permanent fixity of tenure on the tenant, and assuming that the tenant goes ahead and does the work I, being still a very good and noble but impecunious landlord and unable to face the compensation for which I should be liable when he terminates his tenancy, am entirely debarred from giving him notice to quit for fear of the compensation I should be saddled with at the end. I do not really see the need of this. I do not deny that there may be cases in which, in the past or in the present, a certain amount of inconvenience has been caused to a certain number of tenants by a certain number of unreasonable landlords. Nobody who knows anything about it will maintain that they are anything but a small fraction of the whole. If we consider this Bill as a whole the hon. and gallant Member has already in the Bill, in Clause 4, powers to insist upon the necessary repairs in order to enable the land to be kept in a proper state of cultivation. That is the really important thing from his point of view, and when the matter was under discussion the Parliamentary Secretary was very careful to point out that he had no intention of including in the term "repairs," repairs for replacement and, still more, a fortiori new buildings.

Sir E. POLLOCK: Hear, hear!

Mr. WOOD: The Solicitor-General agrees with me. Therefore, if that be so, I fail to see the strong necessity that there is for this Sub-section, unless it be to meet cases which are really very few, in regard to which if those concerned have acted unreasonably you might wish to have compulsory power. I doubt whether it is worth while to impose an unknown
liability upon agricultural land with all the possibilities of far-reaching effects on mortgages involved in agricultural land, and everything else that is bound up in the capital. What will be very much wiser when you are dealing with this subject, is to be content with one thing at a time, and that is, to be content with the compensation provision, and not attempt to pile too much on the camel's back in one load. The whole situation as it was when the 1908 Act was passed, and up to the War, is amended by the decision to re-take the powers of compulsory cultivation, and all that follows it. If those powers are to be put into effect in certain parts of the country there will be the necessity of having proper buildings in order to enable the cultivation to be carried on. Therefore I do not regard this Sub-section as at all vital to the Clause as a whole. For my part, if my hon. Friend goes to a Division on the first seven lines of Sub-section (1), I shall vote with him on the assumption that in doing so I am voting against Sub-section (1), because it appears to me to be the only opportunity I shall have of doing it. Do not let us forget that in agriculture we are more than in anything else building on the capital of the last half century. The cost of buildings, the drainage and the whole bulk of agricultural capital was put into agricultural land fifty years ago and more, and anybody who has to replace it knows how increasingly difficult the replacement becomes. For all these reasons it would be an act of wisdom on the part of the Government to be content with what is wise and prudent and not attempt to do too much, because in attempting to do that they are not unlikely to find that the result is entirely different from that Which they expected, and that it will be averse from that which we all desire, namely, the encouragement of the agricultural industry.

Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: I hope the Government will make a concession on this point. Many of us have been opposed to the control which has been granted in this Bill. We have now come to a Clause where the people who are going to exercise that control are also going to exercise control as to whether a large amount of money has to be spent either by the landlord or by the tenant in order that that control can be exercised. In other words, the tenant farmer is to be
ordered to do what he does not believe to be for the good of his land, the good of himself, or the good of the men employed on his farm,. The tenant farmer, on receiving this order to carry out some improvement which the Agricultural Committee thinks will be to the advantage of the community, will go to his landlord, and say, "I cannot carry out this improvement unless a big alteration is made in my farmstead." The landlord will then be in a position to say, "I am very sorry, but I have not the necessary capital. You have your security of tenure which this Act gives you, and you must carry out the improvement yourself." The tenant farmer then finds himself in the position of having to put a large sum into the buildings which are forced upon him by the control. The Government would be well advised to accept some such Amendment as the one proposed. The control has been given earlier in the Bill, and it is right now to remember that a vital alteration has been made in the Bill. The important question of control was deleted in Committee and has been put in again. At this period, therefore, the Government must consider that alteration, and I hope they will not turn down the proposal now made.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. LANE-FOX: This is a point which did not receive sufficient attention during the Committee stage. Though the Amendments that the hon. Gentleman suggested will make a considerable difference in making the Clause work, still the main objections to Sub-section 1 are immensely strengthened by Clause 4 as now modified. When he suggests that arbitration will get rid of the difficulty, I would point out that arbitrators are human and are therefore fallible, that the matters referred to in the Sub-section are matters of opinion, and when you consider the difficulty of the various questions which are referred to in the first Schedule, and the liability to have mistakes made, it might mean that an estate would be made practically bankrupt. Take the question of waterways, irrigation, roads, and bridges. It is obvious that in many cases the arbitrator cannot have an intimate knowledge of the conditions and possibilities of every situation with which he has to deal. I assume that these arbitrators are going to number about 1,000, and you cannot
get men who will be able to deal with every situation. There may be an enor mous cost involved if this Sub-section is passed in this form without any of the safeguards suggested by subsequent Amendments. The hon. Gentleman has not suggested that he is going to adopt any of those particular Amendments. Without them this Sub-section offers a very gloomy prospect to everybody connected with estates, which is not in the interests of good food production and agriculture generally, and I shall have no hesitation is giving a vote on this point, because if we are left without further safeguards, the results will be very serious. I am very anxious that the tenant farmers of this country should have fair treatment, and that there should be no obstacles to proper improvements being carried out, but I do not believe that the hardship that has been referred to is sufficient to justify the vast expense which would be caused by this Sub-section.

Sir E. POLLOCK: The thoughtful and careful criticism of hon. Members demands some reply. The hon. Member who spoke last expressed some doubt as to whether arbitrators were human.

Mr. LANE-FOX: I said that they were too human.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I find myself in exactly the same position. Standing at this box at 9 o'clock, I feel very human indeed and I desire to go to another part of the building. But is it not possible to take a less gloomy view of this Clause 1 I would invite the attention of my hon. Friend to the Act of 1908, and the portion of the Schedule on which the right hon. Member for Chelmsford said we were building hurried legislation. Under the Schedule, which contains three parts, certain improvements can be made. Some require the consent of the landlord to be given, some require notice to be given to the landlord, and some require neither consent nor notice. The whole covering principle of the Act of 1908 remains hereafter, and is in respect to those improvements which are scheduled. The compensation that can be obtained will be governed by the first Section of the first Clause of the Act of 1908, and I call
attention to it because it is important in considering the terms of the Act of 190S and the present Bill.
Where the tenant of a holding has made thereon any improvement as mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act—
that is, with or without the consent of, or with or without notice to the landlord—
he shall subsequently, as in this Act mentioned, be entitled on the determination of his tenancy, on quitting his holding, to obtain from the landlord as compensation under this Act for his improvement such sum as fairly represents the value of the improvement to an incoming tenant.
When the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) speaks of possible wasteful expenditure, he sees, in his mind, a tall silo going up at a cost of some thousands.

Sir F. BANBURY: Five hundred pounds.

Sir E. POLLOCK: There was another building to go up which would involve thousands. I must ask my right hon. Friend to abandon the great figures with which he deals in the City of London and to come back to the little country districts where £500 counts for a great deal.

Mr. WOOD: Not now.

Sir E. POLLOCK: We have this great safeguard in respect of the powers which are to be exercised on the application of a tenant. It is not a question merely of the agricultural committee or of the arbitrator, who may be unwise, but to have an excellent safeguard in the common sense and the experience of the existing tenant, and if he embarks in schemes which are quite unsuited to the land, and quite useless to any tenant to whom his land may pass afterwards, he will get no compensation. Upon that I am quite certain that a sitting tenant will be very slow indeed to incur absurd or wasteful expenditure, because he would know that his own pocket would suffer. I hope hon. Members will observe that very important provision, and will note also that it is not a situation brought about entirely by this Bill. At the present time the sitting tenant has the power to require certain improvements in farming—those that are in the third part of the schedule—without even giving notice, and without the landlord's consent, and a good number of those might involve con-
siderable expenditure, subject always to this condition—that he would be guided by his own common sense in doing only what is of value to the land. When we are taunted with giving unrestricted or unqualified powers under this Bill, I say that such words are an exaggeration. It has been said, "You have already powers under Section 4"hat is quite right. We have taken power to deal with the question of the maintenance and clearance of drains, the maintenance and repair of hedges and the repair of buildings, but all that is really the upkeep of the farm, and does not relate to matters referred to in the Schedule, namely, the putting of new enterprise and light into the land itself. The Schedule deals with matters which will revivify and increase the productivity of the farm.
The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) seemed, throughout his speech, to be dealing with what I might call the pathology of agriculture. He can see no case which is not disastrous to the landlord, and he says, "Do not increase the fear which this Bill is engendering."I think his argument was one which did rather increase the fear, because he dwelt upon the possibility of the landlord being involved in paying compensation, and he made no reference at all to the fact that there was this limitation to which I have referred. This Section throughout is to deal only with a difficulty which has been experienced since the Act of 1908 came into being. It has been found inconvenient that the Schedule in the Act of 1908 should be divided into three parts, and there are some portions of those items which appear in the first part, in respect of which a desire has been expressed that it should be possible, even without the consent of the landlord, to secure that the improvement shall be undertaken. It is in respect of meeting that difficulty that this Clause, carefully drawn and still retaining a restrictive measure of compensation, has been put before the House. When looked at fairly, and having regard to the safeguards, not put into the Bill because they exist already, it would be quite unfair to describe this Bill as a new Bill to put unfair and imprudent burdens on the landlord. This Clause is designed rather to remove the difficulties in which tenants have found themselves, and at the same time to safeguard and preserve restrictions which are necessary to landlords, good and bad alike.

Sir F. BANBURY: The Solicitor-General made a very good case, but there are many Haws in it. He says, "Look at the first two lines of Section 2 of the Act of 1908,"which he said provided that the compensation given for these improvements will be only such as an arbitrator will consider to be legitimate, provided the improvements are useful to the new tenant. Let me give a few cases. I may say that he has forgotten, or perhaps he did not wish to allude to, the alteration made in Clause 4 with regard to ploughing up. I will deal with that later on and take first an ordinary case. The Solicitor-General says, "Thousands do not count for much in the City of London but count for a great deal in the country." That is not so at the present time. Let the hon. and learned Gentleman put up an excellent modern cowshed, for instance, and he will find that the cost runs into a good many thousands. Take the very simple case of a farm which is capable of being used as a dairy, and where to make it modern buildings costing, say,£6,000 require to be erected. The man may have got Frisian cattle, which are rather delicate, and wishes to house them. The landlord refuses consent but the tenant puts up the buildings. Eventually the tenant finds owing to changed conditions he cannot carry on, and he gives notice. An arbitrator is called in and the question arises whether the buildings would be advantageous to the new tenant. The new tenant will only give the old rent of£300 and will not pay the interest on the buildings and as agriculture is depressed at the time the landlord has to let at £300 and will have to pay compensation for the buildings. Now we come to the case under the alteration made in Clause 4. An agricultural committee order grass land to be ploughed up and buildings will have to be put up. When wheat has fallen, say, to 40s., and with a possible repeal of the guarantees by the Labour party, the farmer would leave in a year or two and the landlord again would have to pay for the buildings. I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for the concessions which he has made, but they do not go far enough. There is the fact that an arbitrator and not the Agricultural Committee is to decide, and there is the Evesham custom. I am not sure that the arbitrator would be able thoroughly to grasp the situation. If I
were called in as an arbitrator my first duty would be to read the Act, where I would see that certain things may be done. Therefore, whatever my views, might be, I would have to consider those things because Parliament would never put into a Bill that certain things could be done if it did not mean that they should be done.
Under those circumstances the landlord may have to pay large sums so that in the case of smaller men they will be faced with bankruptcy. Under the 1908 Act the man who had eventually to find the money was asked for his consent, but in this case the owner of the property who has to find the money eventually is not even asked for his consent. Surely if hon. Members will think how can they expect the prosperity of the country to go on if that sort of thing happens? Where is it going to end? Everybody who thinks he can get something out of somebody else will be pressing for legislation of this sort. We have had it in housing. It was supposed to be during the War, but it has gone on, and the result will be that no one will invest a shilling in real property in the end in this country. We saw what happened in Ireland when this sort of legislation took place and how eventually it was necessary for the State to find the money to buy out the land. I earnestly ask the Government before it is too late to reconsider their position. If they will not do so, personally I would far sooner that they nationalised the land at once.

Mr. GEORGE EDWARDS: I have been trying to ascertain what is the motive of the opposition of the right hon. Baronet and his friends. The right hon. Baronet gave us some enormous figures, which he calculates represent the sum required should the Clause be agreed to as it stands. No one knows better than he that one of the things necessary for good husbandry and for the prosperity of agriculture is that there should be good buildings on every farm, whether arable or dairy. If the right hon. Baronet and those who are opposing the Clause were to visit some of the counties they would find that good buildings suitable for farmers to cultivate their land and to produce food for the people are just the things which they have not got. Again, the argument is used that we are going to compel people to spend money in order
to take money that does not belong to them, but belongs to other people. I cannot find in this Clause, neither can I discover it in any other Clause in the Bill, that we are going to take from other people money which we have no right to take. The Clause says that if the landlord neglects or refuses to erect buildings necessary for the carrying on of this industry, then the Agricultural Committee may apply to the tenant. Listening to the remarks about the agricultural committees from the Benches on the other side, one would think that those committees were composed of Bolsheviks. Who are those agricultural committees, and from what class are they drawn? I know something of them, and my experience is that they are composed of farmers and landlords. There are very few Bolsheviks and anarchists, as hon. Gentlemen like to call Labour men, on those committees. On my committee there are four of us, but you can take a good many counties and you will not find one. Do you think that these agricultural committees are going to do what is not fair, and to indulge in confiscation and robbery against the very class they represent? No one knows better than the right hon. Baronet that no such thing will take place.

Sir F. BANBURY: Excuse me, I think it will.

Mr. EDWARDS: I am glad the hon. Member for Chelmsford is in his place. As I listened to his speech I thought it was one of the most pessimistic that I ever heard about agriculture. Every attempt that we make is going to bring ruin and disaster, especially upon the

poor, pauperised landlord. I hope the Government will not give way any further on this Clause, for it is one of the most essential in the Bill. It will ensure that the man farming his land shall have buildings suitable for him to carry on his industry. Should the landlord neglect to do it, then the tenant himself will have the opportunity to put the buildings up, with the assurance that if he leaves the farm he will receive compensation for the improvement he has made to the property, which does not belong to him, and of which someone else coming in will reap the benefit. I hope the Government will persist, and that we shall have very few more days of this terrible obstruction of the business of the country.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I would really appeal to the House to end the discussion on the Clause. At the beginning I indicated that I would make certain concessions, which I was quite prepared to do. I hoped it would shorten the Debate, but it is not very encouraging to a Member in charge of the Bill, when he undertakes to make concessions on a Clause, which can only be made by detailed discussion of the Amendments, that we should have a two hours' Debate on the Clause as a whole. I appeal to the House to come to a decision on the Clause and to proceed to the detailed consideration that is really necessary.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'the' in Subsection (1) ["tenant is unwilling to accept, the agricultural committee"] stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 38.

Division No. 369.]
AYES.
[9.35 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Casey, T. W.
Gardiner, James


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Chadwick, Sir Robert
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C.M. S.
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Glanville, Harold James


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Davies, Altred Thomas (Lincoln)
Grundy, T. W.


Barnston, Major Harry
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Edge, Captain William
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Hinds, John


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Hirst, G. H.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John


Brittain, Sir Harry
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Bruton, Sir James
Forestier-Walker, L.
Hood, Joseph


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)


Cape, Thomas
Galbraith, Samuel
Hopkins, John W. W.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Johnson, Sir Stanley
Myers, Thomas
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Johnstone, Joseph
Neal, Arthur
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Parker, James
Sutherland, Sir William


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Swan, J. E.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Pratt, John William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Prescott, Major W. H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Tootill, Robert


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Purchase, H. G.
Turton, E. R.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Vickers, Douglas


Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Midlothian)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Waterson, A. E.


Maddocks, Henry
Robertson, John
Whitla, Sir William


Mallalieu, F. W.
Royce, William Stapleton
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)


Manville, Edward
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Martin, Captain A. E.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wise, Frederick


Middlebrook, Sir William
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Sexton, James
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Morgan, Major D. Watts
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Morris, Richard
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)



Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
Simm, M. T.
Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Sitch, Charles H.



NOES.


Atkey, A. R.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Cautley, Henry S.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Townley, Maximilian G.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Courthope, Major George L.
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lort-Williams, J.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Morrison, Hugh



Gretton, Colonel John
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
Sir F. Banbury and Captain


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
FitzRoy.


Question put, and agreed to.

Captain FITZROY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
Provided that in the case of any of the improvements comprised in Part I of the First Schedule of the Act of 1908 the execution of which would materially alter the character of the holding or involve capital expenditure of an amount greater than one year's rent of the holding a direction given by an agricultural committee shall not take effect until a period of six months has elapsed after the date on which notice of the direction having been made was given to the landlord of the holding, and the landlord may at any time during the said period appeal against the direction to an arbitrator. Any such appeal shall be determined by arbitration under the Act of 1908, and where any such appeal is made the direction shall not take effect pending such determination.
I pointed out, in my remarks on the main question, the difference between this Amendment and that which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to accept at the end of the Clause. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is a considerable difference between them, and seeing that these Ploughing up orders are re-introduced into the Bill, the difference
as regards the material alterations in the buildings and the limit put on the amount of expense the owner may be put to will be very considerable. I, therefore, hope he can introduce into the Amendment which he proposes to accept some words equivalent to the proposal in my Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I beg to second the Amendment. In so doing, I should like to point out to the House that while the Ploughing up orders are temporary and are in Part I of the Bill, which may be withdrawn at any time, Part II, under which an owner can be compelled to erect buildings, is permanent. Therefore, an owner may be ordered in consequence of a temporary Ploughing up order made under Part I, which may be repealed in a few years' time, to erect permanent buildings for all time for this ploughed-up land, which the tenant may be at liberty, as soon as times are bad and the guarantees are withdrawn, to lay down to grass without anyone's consent at all. The Parliamentary Secretary said the Clause would probably only apply to a
few cases. Here, therefore, we have another case of legislation for the whole agricultural industry merely because there are a few owners, as he says, who do not provide the necessary capital for their tenants. Here you are passing a Clause which will act detrimentally to the interests of all the owners of land, merely because a few owners are not satisfactory. The Amendment deserves all possible support, and I hope the Government will accept it.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I hope my hon. Friends will not press this Amendment, which does not go so far as the Amendment I propose to accept later in the Clause. This Amendment asks that in certain circumstances, and only in certain circumstances, such, for instance, as an improvement which will alter the character of the holding, or involve expenditure greater than a year's rent, there may be an appeal to an arbitrator. In the Amendment I propose to accept, which stands in the names of the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. T. Davies), the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) and the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Colonel M. Wilson), a landlord or a tenant is allowed the right to go to an arbitrator under any circumstances, whereas my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment only applies to certain cases.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Colonel MURROUGH WILSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "representative" ["and after hearing the landlord or his representative"], to insert the words "and after being satisfied that the holding or part of the holding is suitable for the purposes of market gardening."
This is one of a series of Amendments relating to the Evesham Custom, which is now spreading all over the country. It originally arose in the Vale from which it takes its name, owing to the difficulties which arose, as many farmers wished to go in for intensive cultivation. The Act of 1908 raised difficulties which were got over by the landlord and the tenant coming to a mutual arrangement by what is known as the Evesham Custom, which is roughly this, that the tenant is allowed to put up any necessary buildings or plant trees to any extent, and to do work under the Act of 1908 without getting the con-
sent of the landlord, on condition that on vacating the holding he finds a suitable tenant under certain conditions. That system is spreading all over the country, and an attempt has been made to introduce Clauses to meet it in this Bill. The effect of this Amendment is to secure that the land taken under the Evesham Custom is suitable, and I think such a proviso is desirable.

Major WHELER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I shall be glad to accept this Amendment. It is proposed to give power to call in an arbitrator before deciding whether the land is suitable for the purpose. We do not want intensive cultivation except on land which is suitable for the purpose. A great part of the land of this country is unsuitable, but certain parts are suitable, and we sought to meet the difficulty arising at the present time by the legalisation and general adoption of the Evesham Custom.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel M. WILSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3, a), to leave out the word "the" ["and on the terms and conditions of"].
The object of this and the two succeeding Amendments is this: As the Bill now stands, when a tenant and a landlord make an agreement in regard to another tenant taking the place of the original one, it is fixed by the Bill in accordance with the conditions of the old tenancy. I suggest it is rather unnecessary to tie down an original contract to that extent, and I suggest that the landlord and the tenant should be able to make such new-terms as may suit them. Conditions may have changed and a thousand and one things may have happened, and, failing agreement, they should be able to refer the matter to arbitration.

Major WHELER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot accept this Amendment and the following ones, which are consequential, because they are a complete divergence from the Evesham Custom. I think the Amendment would be quite unworkable. To put in words such as these would really defeat the object of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3, a), leave out the words "for improvements."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Lieut.-Colonel M. WILSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3, b), to insert a new paragraph—
(c) If the direction relates to part only of the holding the direction may, on the application of the landlord, be given subject to the condition that the tenant shall consent to the division of the holding into two parts (one such part being the part to which the direction relates) to be held at rents agreed by the landlord and tenant or in default of agreement settled by the committee, but otherwise on the same terms and conditions as the original holding, so far as applicable.
The object of this Amendment is to meet the case which continually arises on land generally suitable to come under the Evesham custom, where, as it often occurs, one portion of the holding is suitable far that purpose, and the other portion is not. Under these conditions it is considered necessary to divide the tenancy into two separate parts, treating one under the Evesham custom, and the other under the Agricultural Holdings Act.

Major WHELER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am willing to accept the Amendment. I think it is only fair that if only part of the holding is to be treated as a market garden there should be power on the part of the landlord to say that the. holding should be divided. In Committee it was proposed to do this in all cases, but that would not do.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel M. WILSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3, b), after the words last inserted, to insert the words
Provided that where a tenant has been accepted in accordance with the above provision and on the terms and conditions of the existing tenancy, a new tenancy shall not be deemed to have been entered into for the purposes of Sub-section (3) of Section seven of this Act.
10.0 P.M.
I am rather in doubt in my own mind as to what the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary said a few minutes ago in regard to an earlier Amendment. I understood him to say
that any question of rent would not come under this Sub-section, and I also understood him that he has agreed to accept this Amendment.

Major WHELER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Sub-section (3) of Clause 7 of the Bill, to which reference is made, says:
"The provisions of this Section relating to demands for arbitration as to the rent to be paid for a holding shall not apply where the demand is so made that the increase or reduction of the rent would take effect at some time before the expiration of two years from the commencement of the tenancy of the holding or from the date on which a previous increase or reduction of the rent took effect."
I cannot quite understand how this provision does not apply to a new tenancy. The introduction of a new tenant is undoubtedly a new tenancy. I do not see what object my hon. and gallant Friend has in wishing to exclude a case of this sort from the provisions of Sub-section (3).

Mr. PRETYMAN: I quite understand it because my right hon. Friend was asked just now by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) whether the conditions of the new tenancy would apply to the adjustment of rent if it were so desired, and my right hon. Friend replied that it would be possible under Clause 7"Now he said it would not be. Perhaps I have misunderstood it. It would merely allow the adjustment of rent to be made without waiting two years for it. I think it is a very reasonable proposal. The new tenant may wish to have a lower rent or the landlord to have a higher one. Circumstances may have changed. It does seem out of place that he should necessarily wait for two years for an adjustment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend. I quite seethe point, but I have not really given full consideration to the matter. I shall be glad to accept the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: What, without having given full consideration to it?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I said I had not given it full consideration in the sense
that it may be necessary to alter the wording elsewhere, but I think the principle is all right.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel M. WILSON: I beg to move, after Sub-section (5), to insert a new Sub-section—
(6) If in any case a landlord or tenant by notice in writing given to the other party shall so require the power which under this Section may be exercised by a committee shall in that case be exercised by an arbitrator appointed and acting under and in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1908.

Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "or" and to insert instead thereof the word "and".
If this Amendment is carried I shall move a further Amendment making it read, "If in any case a landlord and tenant by notice in writing given to the other party shall so agree." I do not think this proposal has been discussed, and it will stand a little consideration. I do not agree that either party ought to have the right to substitute an arbitrator for the Agricultural Committee. I quite agree that the two parties by agreement might substitute an arbitrator, but I can quite imagine the system working extremely badly if either party has the right independently of the other. We have to look to one party for the agricultural policy of a district. If a tenant asks his landlord's permission to make an alteration in his holding such as the taking down of fences, and so on, or any other of the possible improvements under Part I of Schedule 1 of the Act of 1908, I think the landlord ought to have an appeal to the body which is in charge of the agricultural policy of the district, so that he may say that the improvements which the tenant wishes him to make shall not be compensated for.
I do not think that question ought to be taken out of the purview of the Agricultural Committee by the mere wish of the tenant. Supposing the Committee is a forward one, and they are proposing to work hand in hand with the tenant. Supposing the Committee has required the tenant to plough up his land, and he asks the landowner's consent. In this case I do not think the landlord ought to be able to alter the venue and get the matter
decided by an arbitrator. Except by agreement of the two parties, I do not think the arbitrator ought to be brought in. I am afraid this proposal will cause friction between the Agricultural Committee and the arbitrator, and I suggest this only ought to be done by common agreement.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot accept this proposal. It seems obviously fair that if either the landlord or the tenant has reason to think that he will get better justice, and the matter will be more properly considered by an arbitrator than the Agricultural Committee, he should have the right to demand an arbitrator. I cannot go back upon the principle which I have laid down this afternoon. If the Amendment took the form which my right hon. Friend has suggested, it would add nothing to the Bill, because without any Amendment whatever it is always possible for the two parties to agree to an arbitrator instead of going before the Agricultural Committee. We have only put in the Agricultural Committee first of all because they are the local agricultural authority, and they should have cognisance of these things.
There is another advantage in the Agricultural Committee, and it is that it will be far cheaper in the long run. I think in most cases both parties will agree to go to the Agricultural Committee. If there are reasons why a landlord wishes to go to an arbitrator, he ought to have that right, because very heavy expenditure may be put upon him, and it may be quite right that it should be placed upon him. The landlord may have blocked some improvement that is really necessary for the proper conduct of the farm, and, at the same time, he is running a big financial risk. If he feels that he would sooner have the matter settled by an arbitrator, J do not think the tenant-should have the right to prevent him.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I think it would have been much simpler to have had one body to which these cases should be referred. If one of the parties wishes to go to an arbitrator and the other does not, then there will be a sense of grievance from the very beginning, and the award will be questioned. Then comes the question of expense. If this matter goes to the agricultural committee there will be no expense, but under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908
there are expenses incidental to the arbitration which can be charged. I wish to ask a question as to how this proposal will apply to Scotland.

Mr. SPEAKER: We had better dispose of this question first.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed be there inserted in the Bill."

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I wish to ask the Secretary for Scotland the effect of this Amendment which has been accepted without any discussion. I do not believe the House knows its real meaning. I want to know what would be its effect in Scotland, as I desire to know how to vote on this Amendment. It is useless to say that we should wait until the Scottish Clause comes on, and will the Secretary for Scotland therefore be so good as to answer the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian (Sir J. Hope), and tell us whether an appeal would lie from the arbitrator to the Land Court in Scotland.

Mr. MUNRO: I think the answer to this question is quite simple. So far as the Scottish Clause is concerned, if it remains in its present form, in Scotland the case contemplated by this Sub-section would go to the agricultural committee or the Land Court. In England it goes to the agricultural committee or to the arbitrator. The alternative in Scotland will be between the agricultural committee and the Land Court, and not between the agricultural committee and the arbitrator.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Then that means that it does not go to the arbitrator at all in Scotland?

Mr. MUNRO: Not if the proposal remains unaltered.

Sir J. HOPE: If we abolish the Land Court under this Bill, then it will go to the arbitrator?

Mr. MUNRO: Yes.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Will the expense of these improvements be dealt with by the agricultural committee, and is there any appeal from that committee? If the matter is dealt with by an arbitrator, am I right in saying that
there is an appeal on a point of law by either party to the High Court 1 If the matter begins and ends with the agricultural committee, I understand neither the owner nor the tenant wishing to put themselves into their hands, and if an arbitrator is appointed they can appeal to the High Court, and that makes the position different.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If it goes to the agricultural committee there is no appeal. If it goes to the arbitrator there is an appeal on questions of law only. It is left optional to either party to say whether they will go to an arbitrator or not. They know precisely where they are in either case.
Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Compensation for continuous high farming.)

(1) Where a tenant who quits a holding after the commencement of this Act on so quitting proves to the satisfaction of an arbitrator appointed under the Act of 1908 that the value of the holding to an incoming tenant has been increased during the tenancy by the continuous adoption of a standard of farming more beneficial to the holding than the standard required by the contract of tenancy or by custom, the arbitrator shall award to the tenant such compensation as in his opinion represents the benefit accrued to the holding by the adoption of that standard:

Provided that—

(a) This Section shall not apply in any case unless a record of the condition of the holding has been made under this Act or in respect of any matter arising before the date of the record so made; and
(b) Compensation shall not be payable under this Section unless the tenant has, before the determination of the tenancy, given notice in writing to the landlord of his intention to claim such compensation; and
(c)The arbitrator in assessing the value of the benefit accrued to the holding shall make due allowance for any compensation agreed or awarded to be paid to the tenant for any improvement specified in the First Schedule to the Act of 1908 which has caused or contributed to the. benefit.

(2)The continuous adoption of such a beneficial standard of farming as aforesaid shall be treated as an improvement for the purposes of this Part of this Act.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "farming" ["standard of farming
more beneficial"], to insert the words, "or a system of farming which has been."
In Committee it was suggested it would be better to use the word "standard," rather than "system," but on reconsideration we have come to the conclusion it would be wiser to put in both words, and I beg therefore to move this Amendment.

Sir F. BANBURY: A system of farming may mean almost anything, and something very different from the "standard required by the contract of tenancy or by custom." The insertion of the words "or system" would only make the matter still more complicated than it is already. The Clause apparently is governed by the words "contract of tenancy or by custom, "and I do not know exactly what better word than "standard" could be used. If "system" means anything better, I do not know what it can be. I should have thought the phrase "standard of farming" was quite sufficient without going into the question of systems. I take it a system is quite different from a standard; the latter refers to something already done, but nothing may have been done under a system. Perhaps I might have some explanation on this point.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes also to say "a standard or system" later on in the Clause, where the standard required by the contract of tenancy is referred to.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I never heard of a contract of tenancy which required a particular system of farming, although, of course, it does not follow that there are not such contracts. The usual contract of tenancy, however, leaves the farmer free to farm according to any system he likes as long as he observes the rules of good husbandry: there is nothing to say that he shall follow dairy farming, arable farming, or anything else. I think that this is a most muddling Clause now, and I cannot imagine the amount of litigation that it will cause.

Mr. HOHLER: I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will give more consideration to this Clause. I do not
understand what a "standard" of farming means, as distinguished from good farming, and that is involved by custom. From my experience I am satisfied that a judge would be puzzled by the term, and it is not interpreted anywhere in the Bill. I gather, also, that the word "system" is going to be inserted later on, where reference is now made to "a standard of farming more beneficial to the holding than the standard required by the contract of tenancy of by custom"; and that the words "or by custom" are to be taken out.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: My hon and learned Friend will see that by an Amendment to Clause 25, which I have mentioned more than once, I propose to cover by a general provision all obligations implied by custom.

Mr. HOHLER: It would be more convenient to farmers to find a reference to custom in this very Clause, rather than to have to look at Clause 25. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what is meant by the words "standard or system." They have never found expression in any legislation dealing with agriculture or in the Common Law before, and I fail entirely to understand them. What can the right hon. Gentleman suggest that is better for agriculture than the custom of the country? Why introduce the words "standard or system"? I speak in ignorance, but I know of nothing better than the custom of the country. If plantations and the like are meant, they are already dealt with under the Schedule. We ought to have a clear definition of what these words mean. I know perfectly well what will happen. There is no doubt the Government will carry this unless it is amended in another place. It will go before an arbitrator, who will say to himself, "This Act of Parliament introduces the words 'standard or system.' I do not know what it means. I suppose Parliament must have meant something by these words. I must put some interpretation upon them."Then it will go from Court to Court, and ultimately it will be resolved by the House of Lords. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us definitely in regard to this Act, which is wholly a revolution in agriculture and law as we know it, what he means by the word "system," otherwise it is idle, if not impertinent, to introduce such an Amendment to this House.

Mr. J. GARDINER: I am very much surprised at the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) saying there were no conditions in leases in England in reference to rotation.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I said nothing of the kind. I said there were no conditions as to any particular system of farming.

Mr. GARDINER: In Scotch leases these conditions are inserted, and the system of rotation of cropping is all important. If that system is altered and made more beneficial to the holding I consider that that is an improved system. So far as standard is concerned, if the system is not improved, but continued on the old level, but additional mowing and other beneficial application to the soil, or if there is no hay and straw sold, which is permissible under the lease, that I consider is the standard, the difference between standard and system being in the first place the rotation of cropping, and, hi the second place, the increased fertility of the soil.

Sir J. HOPE: I should like to understand now whether if these words are accepted that will imply that the system of farming which is laid down by the lease can be altered without the consent of both parties. It seems to me that that question is now being raised. There was an Amendment down in the Committee stage to add the words "not being a system expressly prohibited by the contract of tenancy." It seems to me, from what the hon. Member (Mr. Gardiner) has just said, that if we accept these words there is a risk that we may alter the whole conditions of the lease under this Clause.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The only reason why I propose these words is this. We have heard a great deal about the Selborne Report. The words in the Selborne Report are "a system of farming."In Committee we discussed whether the word "system" or "standard" was the better, and there was great divergence of opinion, but on the whole the Committee thought "standard" was the better word. It was subsequently suggested by more than one hon. Member that we should put in both words, and I undertook to do so on Report. That pledge covers everything that could be covered when dealing with such a question as
continuous high farming. In order to cover it fully and properly both words are necessary. It has been suggested that this will give some special compensation to a tenant which he would not otherwise be entitled to. There is an Amendment of mine lower down to add a new Subsection:—
Nothing in this Section shall entitle a tenant to recover in respect of an improvement specified in the First Schedule or the Third Schedule to the Act of 1908 any compensation which he would not be entitled to recover if this Section had not been passed.
If by adopting a higher form of farming improvements are made which are contained in either of these schedules the tenant will not for that reason be entitled to any compensation he would not otherwise have got under that section. Therefore I do not think that any of the fears which have been raised are likely to occur if we adopt both words. If we want continuous high farming both words are necessary. When my hon. and learned friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Hohler) taunts me with having left out "the custom of the country" I ask him to look at my Amendment to Clause 25, which says:
References to the terms, conditions, or requirements of a contract of tenancy of a holding shall be construed as including references to any obligations, conditions, or liabilities implied by the custom of the country in respect of the holding.
That is more inclusive than the words which I propose to leave out, and it also has this advantage that I have not to go on putting down "the custom of the country" every time a reference is made. It is because I want to make these recommendations of the Commission a reality, to cover anything that I think we ought to have both words.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1), after the word "standard" ["the standard required"], insert the words "or system."

Leave out the words "or by custom" ["tenancy or by custom"].

After the word "standard" ["adoption of that standard"], insert the words "or system"—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (a).
Paragraph (a) provides that
This Section shall not apply in any case unless a record of the condition of the holding has been made under this Act or in respect of any matter arising before the date of the record so made.
As it stands with the proviso, this Clause would exclude a claim being made by a tenant in respect of any improvement which happened before a record of the holding had been under the Act. That would mean for some considerable time after the passing of the Act. That is not fair to the tenant, having regard to the object of this Clause. It should be within the competence of the arbitrator, where a tenant proves continuous high farming, irrespective of whether a record has been made or not, subsequent to the passing of this Act, to award compensation under this Clause for continuous high farming.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment. The record spoken of here is not a new idea because a record of the holding was made possible under the Act of 1908. All we are citing is that a record can be used for this purpose whether made under this Bill by Section 20 or under the Act of 1908. There is no difference in the record in the two cases. The onus of proving that the holding has become better is upon the tenant. If he can discharge that onus it does not matter by what means he does it. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept this Amendment, perhaps he would explain why he draws a distinction between the record under one Act and under the other.

Sir J. HOPE: This Amendment is put forward by the Farmers' Union for Scotland. I think that the last speaker spoke in favour of another Amendment in which is the compromise on the point proposed by the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider that compromise fair.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I will be very glad to withdraw my Amendment if the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member (Sir J. Hope).

Major WHELER: I cannot see why a high farmer should not keep a record if necessary. We are dealing with cases in
which a man has done a lot to improve his farm by high farming. I cannot understand why the farmer should not have kept a record of these cases, and therefore I oppose the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: There are really two Amendments. The first is that the compensation should be payable whether the record is made or not; I could not agree to that. In the Selborne Report it is laid down distinctly that compensation for high farming should be payable only if a record has been made. It is a fair principle. We want to pay only where a man has improved his farm by continuous high farming. We want to be sure that that has been done. Therefore, there must be a record. There is an Amendment later on the Paper, in Subsection (1, a), after the word "Act," to insert the words, "or under the Act of 1908," and if agreeable to the House I would accept that as a compromise. It would include a record made either under this Act or the previous Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendments made: In subsection (1, a), after the word "Act," insert the words "or under the Act of 1908."

In Sub-section (1, b), leave out the word "determination," and insert instead thereof the word "termination"—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Amendment proposed: After Subsection (1), insert a new Sub-section—
(2) Nothing in this Section shall entitle a tenant to recover in respect of an improvement specified in the First Schedule or the Third Schedule to the Act of 1908 any compensation which he would not be entitled to recover if this Section had not been passed."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I am not quite sure how far this Amendment goes. It seems to me to ride right through the whole of the Clause. The objects of this Clause are to ensure compensation for continuance of intensive farming. The Amendment, I understand, prevents the tenant obtaining compensation in respect of any of these improvements in the First and Third Schedules of the Act of 1908, but when one looks at those Schedules they seem to include nearly every possible improvement that the tenant could make in pursuing his system of high farming. I would be grateful for an explanation.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Amendment is necessary. If not inserted, the effect will be that, under Clause 10, the tenant farmer can entirely override the provisions of Clause 9. What he could do in carrying out a system of continuous high farming would be to execute permanent improvements or make market garden improvements without getting the consent of the landlord, or the Agricultural Committee, or an arbitrator under Clause 9, and then he could claim compensation for the permanent improvements, or very heavy compensation for the market garden improvements.

Mr. TOWNLEY: Under this Bill I suppose he will get compensation for having ploughed up grass land, and, under the Third Schedule of the Act of 1908, he will also get compensation for laying it down again.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Very likely that might happen unless we had this Amendment, which distinctly limits him exercising a power which he could only otherwise exercise under Clause 9.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2), after the word "standard," insert the words "or system."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

CLAUSE 12.—(Arbitration on quitting holding.)

(2) Any such claim as is mentioned in this Section shall cease to be enforceable after the expiration of two months from the termination of the tenancy unless particulars thereof have been given by the landlord to the tenant or by the tenant to the landlord, as the case may be, before the expiration of that period.

(3) This Section shall not apply in the case of a tenancy which terminates before the commencement of this Act.

Amendment proposed: At the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
Provided that where a tenant lawfully remains in occupation of part of a holding after the determination of the tenancy, pai -ticulars of a claim relating to that part of the holding may be given within two months from the termination of the occupation."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Sir F. BANBURY: What is the meaning of the words "lawfully remains in occupation of part of a holding"? How can he remain lawfully in occupation after
the determination of tenancy; or does it mean where he is allowed to have a rick on the farm until it is threshed?

Sir E. POLLOCK: Sub-section (2) of this Clause deals with the period within which the claim must be made. There may be two lettings in the occupation of the tenant, and under circumstances of that sort this proviso is inserted merely to operate where a tenant lawfully remains in occupation of part of a holding. That does not mean that where, by the licence of the landlord, a rick is left, but where in fact he is in occupation.

Sir F. BANBURY: It is not a question of courtesy. Very often in the agreement it is laid down that after the termination of the tenancy the outgoing tenant is allowed to keep a rick.

Sir E. POLLOCK: It is where he remains in "occupation" of a portion of the land; not at all because he is given some small right to retain a rick or something of that kind and which is really a licence and no more.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: If that is so, I do not understand it. If the tenant remains in occupation in that sense, and if the tenancy has been determined, he must either be a licensee or a trespasser.

Mr. PRETYMAN: We shall be quite satisfied if the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us a concrete case or a real reason for inserting these words. What we want to know is under what circumstances can a tenancy be determined and the tenant still remain in legal occupation of part of it.

Sir E. POLLOCK: My first words were a case where holdings were held under separate and different tenures. You might have a holding to which are a couple of acres which had been added. That is the first case which I have in mind. I will endeavour to allay my right hon. Friends' fears by telling them that these are words which are copied out of the Act of 1908 and have been in existence twelve years. If they will look at page 68 of the Act of 1908, Section 6, Sub-section (2), they will find these words:
Provided that, where the claim relates to an improvement executed after the determination of the tenancy but while the tenant lawfully remains in occupation of part of the holding, the notice may be given at any time before the tenant quits that part.

Mr. TOWNLEY: Is not that repealed under this Bill?

Sir E. POLLOCK: I have not looked. May I deal with one point at a time? That is not relevant here. The right hon. Gentleman will see that these words are not intended to cover such a case. There may have been one or two fields which have been added to the particular holding held under an agreement, and he may be in occupation of that. They are not intended to deal with the case which he feared where under an agreement, some licence was allowed to the tenant. Inasmuch as they are the words already in the Act of 1908, I think the suspicions that are attached to them may now be removed.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is not that rather something different. Sub-section (2) of Clause 6 says:
Provided that where the claim relates to an improvement executed after the determination of the tenancy"—
which is a different thing altogether.

Sir E. POLLOCK: The principle is precisely the same. It is that you are going to do justice to the tenant. It may be under the Act of 1908. What you are dealing with is a question of improvement. The modification relates to the proviso of a limited time, and therefore the proviso is equally right, whether or not the ground for compensation arises in one ground or another.

Lieut. -Colonel ROYDS: In some tenancy agreements in Cheshire it is provided that the farm shall be given up as to So-and-so in February, as to So-and-so in March, and as to So-and-so in April, and there is always some doubt as to the date at which the tenancy terminates. This, I think, is put in to meet such a case.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Compensation to Landlord for Deterioration of Holding.)

"Where a landlord proves, to the satisfaction of an arbitrator appointed under the Act of 1908, on the termination of the tenancy of a holding, that the value of the holding has been deteriorated during the tenancy by the failure of the tenant to cultivate the holding according to the rules of good husbandry and the terms of the contract of tenancy, the arbitrator may award to the landlord such compensation as in his opinion
represents the deterioration of the holding due to such failure."

Mr. LANE-FOX: I beg to move, to leave out the word "may" ["the arbitrator may"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I accept this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Why does the right hon. Gentleman accept it?

Mr. ACLAND: It seems to me to be logical. The word "shall" is the word used in the parallel Clause, which applies to compensation for continuous high farming.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is the simple reason why I am agreeing to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
Provided that compensation shall not be payable under this Section unless the landlord has, before determination of the tenancy, given notice in writing to the tenant of his intention to claim such compensation.
Under Clause 10, Sub-section (1, b), there is provision made that the tenant shall give notice of his intention to claim, and the object of this Amendment is to ensure that a similar obligation shall rest on the landlord.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have no objection to accepting these words. This also will put this Clause for compensation for continuous bad farming on the same level as the Clause for compensation for good farming.

Amendment agreed to.

It being Eleven of the Clock, further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered to-morrow.

Orders of the Day — CENSUS, 1921.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Sections 14 and 15 of Part. I., and Sections 13, 14, and 15, of Part II., of the Second Schedule to the Draft of the Census Order, 1920 [presented 1st November], be approved."—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

Sir F. BANBURY: I object.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is exempted business.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of I9th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes after Eleven o'clock.